I heard the guys bring this up on the podcast so I wanted to voice my opinion
Here it goes...
If anyone has paid attention to my posts, they are aware that I coach S&C at the High School level in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I am proud of what I have been able to accomplish as one of the more glowing compliments I recently received was from a basketball scout telling me how physically prepared some of our Juniors and Senior look.
I'd love to one day have the opportunity at a collegiate program but I do recognize I am still trying to work my way up that chain.
I have also had the opportunity to spend time with the Oklahoma S&C staff in the past in the form of clinics and internships so with my experience in this world coupled with actual hands-on time with the staff there, I feel uniquely qualified to express my opinion on this topic.
Two things right off the bat:
1. I greatly respect Wylie and his journey. The man is obviously a fantastic trainer with a track record that, although spotty, does demonstrate competency in this field.
2. Most fans don't understand how S&C staff, Athletic Trainers, Nutrition staff operate so when I see people say, "just make them run more gassers" or "need to be doing stadium steps!" it isn't annoying but it does show a lack of understanding in where S&C is these days.
So here's my opinion...
Trainers, like coaches, have different philosophies in how they want to coach and the relationship they want to have with their athletes. I have defended Wylie in the past because I think there hasn't been good reason to call him out, at least up until this point.
Two things I noticed when I was able to spend time with the staff as an on-looker.
1.) How high the volume was in their programming for their athletes and the amount of exercises there were that a number of well-respected S&C coaches would consider "junk" from a performance perspective. As the thread progresses, I would be willing to go into more details as to why that may be the case and what I am specifically talking about.
2.) I was very taken aback by how little "max effort" speed work there was. By this, I am not talking gassers but I am talking about very high CNS demand sprint and COD work that, over time, helps improves the athletes overall work capacity.
3.) Directly in conflict with #2, I was equally surprised by the amount of rigid strength work (mid-foot exercises) that don't emulate real-time joint mechanics during athletic performance.
4.) How much machine work (elliptical, treadmill, etc.) conditioning was performed with heavier players when technical sprints in the 60%-75% range would have been equally, if not more effective.
Contrast this with Schmitty who, as much as people felt the guy got players injured, built his program around who is going to be the last man standing. In other words, if you can't handle the intensity of the conditioning, however antiquated some of it may be now, you weren't going to last at Oklahoma.
I have to be honest in that I do not know a ton about Schmitty's philosophical approach but I feel I have gleamed a lot from hearing others who have worked with him in the past discuss his approach.
Schmitty did a few things that I am major fan of and incorporate in my program at the HS level
1.) Drills are competitive. It seems like it in literally everything they did, if you didn't win, you lost.
2.) He seemed to really like the Olympic lifts and although there were elements of bodybuilding in his program, as there is in every well-rounded program, he emphasized moving and using the entire body in the way it was going to be used on game day.
The only reason I even feel the need to knock Wylie on his approach is the Texas teams he was responsible for in the past, as well as some of those Tech teams, toughness and winning attitude was not the calling card of the conditioning room as it was at Oklahoma during that time.
Although science has shown over the years that conditioning for conditioning sake is not the best way to train, there has to be made a place for it and the competitive element must be there within the team during that off-season conditioning.
If you have any specific questions you'd like to ask, I'd love to dive into more of where I think some of those issues lie but I'd also love to hear from @dmackey13 about whether or not what I've heard of Schmitty and his philosophy is pretty close to accurate as I am very confident about Wylie's approach.
As much as I hate to see any S&C be relieved of his duties, if these second-half lapses and just absence of athleticism at some positions continue to rear their ugly head, at some point the man responsible for that plan must be held accountable.
Here it goes...
If anyone has paid attention to my posts, they are aware that I coach S&C at the High School level in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I am proud of what I have been able to accomplish as one of the more glowing compliments I recently received was from a basketball scout telling me how physically prepared some of our Juniors and Senior look.
I'd love to one day have the opportunity at a collegiate program but I do recognize I am still trying to work my way up that chain.
I have also had the opportunity to spend time with the Oklahoma S&C staff in the past in the form of clinics and internships so with my experience in this world coupled with actual hands-on time with the staff there, I feel uniquely qualified to express my opinion on this topic.
Two things right off the bat:
1. I greatly respect Wylie and his journey. The man is obviously a fantastic trainer with a track record that, although spotty, does demonstrate competency in this field.
2. Most fans don't understand how S&C staff, Athletic Trainers, Nutrition staff operate so when I see people say, "just make them run more gassers" or "need to be doing stadium steps!" it isn't annoying but it does show a lack of understanding in where S&C is these days.
So here's my opinion...
Trainers, like coaches, have different philosophies in how they want to coach and the relationship they want to have with their athletes. I have defended Wylie in the past because I think there hasn't been good reason to call him out, at least up until this point.
Two things I noticed when I was able to spend time with the staff as an on-looker.
1.) How high the volume was in their programming for their athletes and the amount of exercises there were that a number of well-respected S&C coaches would consider "junk" from a performance perspective. As the thread progresses, I would be willing to go into more details as to why that may be the case and what I am specifically talking about.
2.) I was very taken aback by how little "max effort" speed work there was. By this, I am not talking gassers but I am talking about very high CNS demand sprint and COD work that, over time, helps improves the athletes overall work capacity.
3.) Directly in conflict with #2, I was equally surprised by the amount of rigid strength work (mid-foot exercises) that don't emulate real-time joint mechanics during athletic performance.
4.) How much machine work (elliptical, treadmill, etc.) conditioning was performed with heavier players when technical sprints in the 60%-75% range would have been equally, if not more effective.
Contrast this with Schmitty who, as much as people felt the guy got players injured, built his program around who is going to be the last man standing. In other words, if you can't handle the intensity of the conditioning, however antiquated some of it may be now, you weren't going to last at Oklahoma.
I have to be honest in that I do not know a ton about Schmitty's philosophical approach but I feel I have gleamed a lot from hearing others who have worked with him in the past discuss his approach.
Schmitty did a few things that I am major fan of and incorporate in my program at the HS level
1.) Drills are competitive. It seems like it in literally everything they did, if you didn't win, you lost.
2.) He seemed to really like the Olympic lifts and although there were elements of bodybuilding in his program, as there is in every well-rounded program, he emphasized moving and using the entire body in the way it was going to be used on game day.
The only reason I even feel the need to knock Wylie on his approach is the Texas teams he was responsible for in the past, as well as some of those Tech teams, toughness and winning attitude was not the calling card of the conditioning room as it was at Oklahoma during that time.
Although science has shown over the years that conditioning for conditioning sake is not the best way to train, there has to be made a place for it and the competitive element must be there within the team during that off-season conditioning.
If you have any specific questions you'd like to ask, I'd love to dive into more of where I think some of those issues lie but I'd also love to hear from @dmackey13 about whether or not what I've heard of Schmitty and his philosophy is pretty close to accurate as I am very confident about Wylie's approach.
As much as I hate to see any S&C be relieved of his duties, if these second-half lapses and just absence of athleticism at some positions continue to rear their ugly head, at some point the man responsible for that plan must be held accountable.
Last edited:
