If you have to ask, you can't afford it
Don't read anything more into it than that.
as many of you have pointed out. Kelly's comments on Kizer prove he hasn't changed. ND might win 8 games this year, but all 11 games will be decided on the last offensive or defensive series because of his dipsy doodle offensive philosophy. The fast break offense also means the defense will be on the field a lot more.
if the offense (His Cuteness') scores quickly and often. Not gonna happen. Kelly won't change unless they change his meds.
Where I might just lose complete faith in notre dame football. Where are the lineman before and after photos? What's their movement and mobility improvement? Can they dominate for 60-minutes in the trench? Because they couldn't before.
I bet Brady Quinn could still out-bench every single current player on the roster at reps of 225lb. But does that translate into anything relevant on the football field? I can wait to find out.
throw into a hurricane!
Tom Herman does!
I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I think it's nice for the guys that they look better than they looked before. It might help them get more girls, have more fun at parties, and feel better about themselves. Will it better prepare them to play football at a higher level? I don't know, but I don't see how putting a crossfit program together is good for football.
I know, I know--it pushes you to your limits! It forces you to tough through stuff! It's like the military!
It would seem like in today's world there are no secrets, you can see who is getting great results and they are unlikely to have secret methods that nobody else knows. It's all out there for all to investigate and implement.
“We’re basically doing the same program we’ve been doing for a long, long time,” says head coach Nick Saban, who’s in his 10th year at Alabama.
“It’s someone’s ability to effectively implement the plan with the players that separates the really good guys from the just-okay guys. Scott’s really, really good at that.”
While ultimately Cochran oversees the plans that get players bigger, faster, and stronger, the details of how they do it are less important than getting them to believe they can do it.
“There’s no magic,” Cochran says. “It takes what it takes.”
This is the foreman of the Alabama muscle factory, a position he holds not because of any unique approach to fitness but because he knows how to push the right buttons of college kids as young as 18 who are expected to perform at a championship level all day, every day.
“It’s the intangibles: effort, mental toughness, being responsible for doing what you need to do,” Saban says.
“It does require a tremendous amount of physical conditioning to sustain those things. People loaf when they’re tired. Fatigue makes cowards of us all. That’s Vince Lombardi’s saying.”
Harder, better, faster, longer, stronger....
wanting more access to their players and if they cannot have the access they hire like minded guys to run things the way that they want. If you spoke with your average coach that perhaps doesn't have an S/C background his focus might be on "I need to make these guys tougher; they need to learn to push their limits and do what they're told" instead of "we need to maximize their performance capabilities" the way a personal trainer might.
in which they are, especially when the after photos have noticeably more contrast in the background of the images. Of those, Coney is the only one that seems to me to be clearly bigger even adjusting for flexing. Of course his after photo is extremely zoomed in compared to the others. But he didn't post his after weight numbers to compare.
So we're left with numbers to compare for two of the four. One had body fat go up, one had it go down. In both, they effectively put on muscle. That's obviously one positive thing that can translate to football performance. But without 40 and 10 numbers, it's premature to see if it actually means better football.
And yeah, there's no way the vertical improvement numbers are legit. I would put no stock in purported 11 inch improvements (totally bogus) or even a 5 inch improvement over that span. Could there actually be a small improvement there? Sure. But given that these were clearly gamed, how could we tell? And I'm not seeing any calf muscle growth on those two guys. (Edit: Of course, for McKinley, if he's recovering from a broken leg, that seems a good reason why his vertical is considerably greater from 3 months after the injury to 7.)
But I think a lot of people, especially ND fans, fall into the trap of the silver bullet. That there is just one thing wrong (or just a small amount of issues) that is keeping us from being elite national title contenders.
This goes a lot of different ways, including just assuming if we got rid of Kelly (or Jack), things would be magically fixed.
I think, and if people pay attention to what people are saying, and don't generalize and bastardize and parse statements made here and elsewhere, you'll see that many of the long time posters are suggesting it isn't any one thing, and that simply firing Kelly and or Jack wont' magically change things, or even replacing Jenkins won't change things.
There is a pervasive rot that has taken over ND football the past 20 years, which is the result of over 2 decades of neglect, mismanagement, poor decision making, misplaced priorities, financial decisions, etc. It is not any one thing that is wrong with ND and keeping us from truly competing for and winning national titles at ND. I don't have the answer, but what I do know is this, the return back to where we want to be isn't going to be easy or quick. There is too much institutional inertia pointing us in the wrong direction.
That said, I'm glad our new S&C program appears to be paying dividends, that is a good thing. And if I don't focus on that, it's not because I don't think it's a good thing. But I look at ND and see a gigantic ship heading the wrong way, and the gains in S&C are good, it amounts to a deckhand nudging the wheel a little bit while the captain isn't looking. We're still heading the wrong way. Our problems run deep, and I don't see large swaths of people who love ND football really thinking about changing that.
So S&C gains are good. The direction of the program is still off, and there are too many institutional issues to list.
I am pretty sure I saw PN make this point below, but the reality of strength and conditioning training is that pretty much any training stimulus introduced to elite, genetically gifted male athletes between the ages of 17-23 will result in strength increases and usually muscular weight gain.
That doesn't mean that Balis is maximizing the role of strength, conditioning, nutrition and rest within the program.
I think the point everyone is making is that Notre Dame (like Stanford) should be at the cutting edge of strength and nutrition in order to try to level the playing field with programs that generally get better athletes. And many people, including myself, believe that Balis is just another "run-lift-jump until you puke" trainer. We're leaving performance gains on the table.
That all said, you should see some improvement in strength and conditioning from our players because it seemed like Longo had really lost control of things. If the team is buying into these sub-optimal workouts, they still should see benefits simply because of their age and gender (and, accordingly, their hormonal profile), and genetic/athletic gifts.
his tweets reference charts, graphs, etc.
I'd like to hear his overall philosophy and PN's analysis of it.
I would understand a school like Stanford that has a medical school and a world class research program. Same with other larger state Universities like Texas or Penn State. Or Oregon as both a state university and its connection to Nike. But I don't see how Notre Dame has any inherent advantages that would put it on the cutting edge of strength and nutrition.
Whether it should be is another question - for the University as a whole. But not necessarily the athletic department.
All that being said, I would hope that they just wouldn't suck. Like they did under Longo.
(a) we can afford to be.
(b) we owe it to athletes--particularly those playing an inherently dangerous sport to the tremendous financial benefit of the Univesity--to provide them the very best preparation and care.
(c) “My primary conviction has been, and is, that whatever else a university may be, it must first of all be a place dedicated to excellence. Most of my waking hours are directed to the achievement of that excellence here in the academic order. As long as we, like most American universities, are engaged in intercollegiate athletics, we will strive for excellence of performance in this area too, but never at the expense of the primary order of academic excellence. . . . There is no academic virtue in playing mediocre football and no academic vice in winning a game that by all odds one should lose. There has been a surrender at Notre Dame, but it is a surrender to excellence on all fronts, and in this we hope to rise above ourselves with the help of God." T. Hesburgh, C.S.C.
Stanford can do cutting edge because they are a world class research university that studies these things.
Notre Dame can hire folks that follow their research, but that is not cutting edge.
that simply hiring folks that follow their research and incorporating it would be cutting edge relative to the rest of the sport. Whether that's true, I don't know.
Is there any inherent obstacle to ND investing in improving (to the point of first-class) some of the sport-, and strength-, and nutrition-related sciences, both physical and human capital?
A second thought:
Putting aside the above, I think you are noting the difference between being a producer versus consumer-practitioner of knowledge in the sciences. While I agree that without first-class research facilities and capacities, ND cannot "do" cutting-edge, I disagree that practitioners cannot "be" cutting-edge and also mindful of quality-control procedures to "study" or monitor program impact and effectiveness.
In other words, one need not be a producer of knowledge to be a cutting-edge practitioner.
who are at the cutting edge at Stanford or Texas or Oregon or wherever. They don't hold a patent on technique; what they are doing is easily replicated by the right people.
Top-tier nutrition and training falls well within the program ethos to give the very best student-athlete experience.
trainer? Have you read any of his material or did you attend any of his events where he spoke on his training methods? I am just asking because if you are basing your opinion on articles you read , it seems that would be an opinion based on nothing.
For me, I don't know enough to go either way. He seems to be respected by his former players but who knows. I will see if they are still gaining in the middle of the season and are strong in November as they are in September.
I've read material he has authored. (One such powerpoint is linked) I've read articles in Connecticut, Starkville, and South Bend papers that include direct quotes from either Balis or his players about his methods.
If I have to read any additional material or attend a seminar in which he was featured presenter in order to have an opinion on the matter, I would elect not to have an opinion on the matter.
also, I didn't realize that the primary role of an S/C coach is motivation. Interesting.
which is appropriate since most of what our coach does is a direct ripoff of someone more successful.
Secret Sauce! Management principles!
Thing if he picks the proper things to rip off?
but I think most in S/C would argue that crossfit isn't really that great of a thing for a college football S/C program to ripoff.
Cross fit focuses primarily on one. The frontal plane of motion. In other words, a lot of up and down and forward and backward. Yes, it has its place and one can gain strength and change their physique in a positive manner.
However, it really lacks in sagittal and transverse motions, the side to side and rotational movements.
Football obviously requires strength and abilities in each direction like any other sport. This is a big reason programs avoid cross fit. They may still use Olympic lifts, though Cross Fitters like to pretend Cross Fit invented the Olympic lift. Another issue is that a lot of Cross Fit focuses on quantity over quality resulting in a high injury rate. Some facilities do a great job, but it's a franchise and most facilities are a nearby physical therapist's dream.
In the end, Cross Fit really isn't overall very functional for anyone, but if done correctly, it's still better than ignoring health altogether.
that's funny. When Nebraska was a football power in the 90's their program focused very heavily on the Olympic lifts and there was a great deal of copy cat going on with other top programs (including ND, I believe). I recall doing a ton of those lifts and I hated it for the basic reasons you imply (everything about going forward, poor lateral training).
As soon as the game became less about blowing guys back off the ball and more about side to sideline movement I think a lot of that stuff died off.
There's no correct way to do a kipping pull-up, or deadlifts and cleans for time. There is no programming in CF, which I'm sure you know.
I agree that CF can be useful if one performs the lifts safely and removes the ludicrous bullshit, but unsafe maneuvers and idiotic programming are tenets of CF.
stuff, but was pretty shocked to see those before after shots. Tevon Coney is huge. Now, lets see if it translates to the football field.