Head coaches: USATF or USTFCCCA certification?

I can't imagine this mattering unless you are going for a big D1 program or intending to coach a club that participates in almost exclusively USATF events.

I'm really annoyed with the USATF coaching process and will briefly tell you why, followed by a defense of it, and then my real life experience (which is tiny).

The USATF offers coaching classes at various levels. Completing one essentially made you certified at that level. Except a few years ago they decided that everyone had to retake the classes from a basic level and only gave exceptions to people who took a test during a small window of time. Basically they hosed years worth of coaches from having their certifications such that now they need to pay money for these rather hard to find classes just to get the certification they already have. It's basically a non-starter for a guy like me who has already once before in his life taken a week out of it to travel somewhere for a silly few days of a class.

In their defense they added this requirement to retake the class because of the prevalence of doping in track and field. They wanted doping in their curriculum so at least any official coaches can't claim ignorance and so that USATF can exonerate themselves from blame.

How convenient for USATF that this also forces people to put more money in their hands to keep their coaching current. Rather than punish the offending coaches in meaningful ways they're going to make a buck off people trying to follow the rules.

I was involved with a D3 school. They did not seem to care at all whether my "training" came from USATF or USTFCCCA. All it meant was that I bothered to check the box. If you're working for small schools who don't send kids to USATF meets in the offseason, then there's no need to have USATF. There's no need to have USTFCCCA unless the school(s) you're interested in have taken it upon themselves to be a poster child for the organization.

I recommend looking at all the available classes between them all and simply picking the one most convenient to your schedule and travel ability. It checks the box. If ever you work your way up in coaching to where it might matter, then ask your school to pay for you to take the next best thing.

100% of the coaches can obtain multiple certifications if they want. A much smaller % are outstanding coaches. IMO, certifications are fine and not going to hurt you in terms of how much help, that is debatable. The number one factor is how successful you are as a coach when securing a coaching job.

Don't forget the insane test each coach has to take for recruiting purposed... mandatory yearly. Imagine Sabin from Alabama failing these stupid tests.

critic 100 wrote:

Don't forget the insane test each coach has to take for recruiting purposed... mandatory yearly. Imagine Sabin from Alabama failing these stupid tests.

I had no idea either group requited the NCAA recruiting test.

And yes Saban at Alabama has to take and pass the test.

The recruiting test is open book. If you can read the index, you can do extremely well on the test.

Most ads for assistant coaches that I've read ask for USATF Level 2 or equivalent which would be the Coaches Academy Specialist level. They're somewhat equivalent so I can't imagine any HC would be that caught up in it either way.

The other important certification at the NCAA level is now the Strength & Conditioning certification which is required to be able to work with your athletes in strength training. The class is 2 days, but the subsequent projects and testing usually takes the better part of a week to complete.

You missed the whole point.

If you have coached several Olympians, NCAA All Americans in all college sports what is the testing for.

According to you, taking these fruitless test just null and voided college educations. I recall once you needed that, to coach on the upper level. Now a 2 day tclass to work with the top athletes?

I didn't miss any point, just pointing out what the NCAA requires.

Debating the value of a 2 day class vs other means of acquiring knowledge would be a different story. I can tell you that when I took the class, the myriad of coaches who were purported to be "experts" were rather clueless when it came to program design in our class.

No, a two day class would not take the place of years of learning, but the USTFCCCA course was intense and very useful piece of the big picture. Boo is just that good, IMHO.

lol I didn't study for the NCAA Recruiting exam and passed it first try. I think I got 93%.

It's not hard and most of it is common sense. They make you take it every year because they have updates on the rules. It literally took me less than 10 minutes to finish. Not much of a hassle to do once a year.

I began with a USATF course but switched to USTFCCCA because USATF denied my application to take their level 2 because I didn't fit their 3 years experience qualification at the time so I tried USTFCCCA and they accepted me and I have now done 3 courses with them and haven't even considered USATF. I guess I'm bitter about my original rejection haha. But I think both are good for new coaches.

I also heard a few people say some USTFCCCA instructors provide more info than USATF coaches but not sure if this is true.

I have taken two USATF Level 2 course and also the 2 day strength and conditioning course through USTFCAA. Generally speaking the course formats and frame work were nearly identical. USATF gives you a long book that goes into a lot of detail on whatever topic you signed up for. USTFCCCA booklets tend to be shorter and more basic, but also offer more applied examples and get more straight to the point. They also give you access to the power points and videos from the class as well as a written book version of it vs USATF won't give you the power points and only gives you the books (all PDF versions.) While the courses were similar, I felt like I learned more about sprint training from the strength class with Boo than I did from a week at the USATF course, mostly because the USTFCCCA course provided more hands on examples of how to apply the science in practical settings. USATF just gave a science framework and told us to fill in the blanks. The one plus of USATF was the instructors were more willing to serve as resources for students after the class ended while the USTFCCCA instructors told us we were not allowed to email them with any questions about our project or 18 quizzes assigned and only one of them even gave us an email to use for future reference. The USATF instructors were more than willing to stay connected and continue to serve as resources for us after class ended. I also thought it was dumb that we could not ask questions about the project for USTFCCCA where we did not have any retake opportunities if we failed and you have to recert there every 5 years, where as USATF is good for life as of right now. I learned more from the USTFCCCA course initially, but may have gotten more value and long lasting resources from USATF.

Then you must be one that got like a 34 on your ACT and retain and test well. The test is not easy and some years you get the harder more complexed questions and some years you get less of them. I would say most of the coaches at my school who have been coaching for awhile pass it each year where the younger ones and GAs sometimes take it 2-3 times before they pass it. I've been a head NCAA DII coach for 15 years. Last year I got a 97 on the test and this year an 80 which is just passing. There's no way you took the test in 10:00!

I believe theD1 and D2 tests are similar but the D2 test is much longer?

In any case, the bigggest problem I have with the USATF system is that they consistantly change the rules as you progress through the system. In addition, their communication between the coaches and the people in the system is severely lacking. I just completed my Level III and found they kept moving the finish line on me. In addition, they gave misinformation, lost paperwork, and failed to communicate at all. My "mentor" did not respond to numerous emails and submissions of publication. The requirement changed from "an article worthy of publication" to scientific research of a "quality of a master's thesis."

I was asked to do 6 months of work while other Level III coaches have told me they submitted a "summary of a seminar they attended."

The information is good, the core of instructors at the Level II level is outstanding. The entire system needs consistency and some tweaking.

The whole thing is a money grab. The truth is that they are just a bunch of letters to put on your resume that don't mean jack.

The fact that a person with no knowledge or coaching experience can attend a 2 day class and pass a test, now calling themselves a "certified coach" is a complete joke and disgrace to our sport. I have known too many people picking up these certs, without any background or experience in the sport, just to pad their credentials and call themselves a coach. This doesn't make someone a coach any more than taking a CPR class makes me a doctor.

I am all for education and learning, this is a must within our sport but we can't grow our sport in the correct way with "coaches" who shouldn't be coaching. I see this at the club/hs level more than anything - colleges will weed out the pretenders - but "certified" club coaches, collecting loads of money from parents, with little to zero real knowledge and coaching ability are not an asset to the sport.

If the same courses were offered without "certification" would we see the same people taking the courses? If they truly cared about the sport, they would be there.

If the issuing body still offered the same courses without the "certification" title, what would happen to their numbers and dollars???

We used to have clinics and education without "certifications" but once the $$$ of the certification equation was figured out for both the providers and the attendees it became about the $$$ for everyone.

I have been to a lot of clinics and conferences that turn into discussions and essentially open forum conversations, guarantee that there is more knowledge sharing going on in these than any certification course.

Granted, it is better to have a "certified coach" who at least attended a 2 day class than someone who has nothing.

Pick up a certification if you think it is necessary but network, connect, build relationships, attend clinics, read books, have a conversation with those that know more than you, visit practices, watch - listen - learn.

Yowatabout wrote:

Then you must be one that got like a 34 on your ACT and retain and test well. The test is not easy and some years you get the harder more complexed questions and some years you get less of them. I would say most of the coaches at my school who have been coaching for awhile pass it each year where the younger ones and GAs sometimes take it 2-3 times before they pass it. I've been a head NCAA DII coach for 15 years. Last year I got a 97 on the test and this year an 80 which is just passing. There's no way you took the test in 10:00!

What? The NCAA Coching exam is a joke. It is open book and you get a sheet with the new legislation. The questions are mostly word for word along with the answers being word for word in the practice exams. Who in the hell needed to take it 3 times to pass? It takes almost as long to log into the exam as it does to complete it.

The coaches that go to the certifications in my experience are very knowledgeable and experienced. The sharing of ideas amongst these coaches is amazing. The instructors are incredible. Last year they had trouble pulling one of the sections off because the instructors had to go to Rio to be with their athletes.

A few weeks ago during the XC certification at Villanova I had breakfast with Joe Vigil. Just the two of us. He explained basic training at levels of VO2 Max, Brenda Martinez's training regimen, and took the time to give me advice about my athletes.

I took one of my level 1 course with Loren Seagrave as the sprint instructor. When I take may level 3 course this December it's very likely that he will be involved. It's been my experience with Loren and the other instructors that they are wide open on the sharing of information as they understand it. I took my level 2 sprint certification with Tony Veney who is incredibly knowledgeable from the 55 meters through the 800 meters. These guys will answer questions you may have long after the course is over.

Going into the level 2 you are required to take an on line course to learn sport science from Christine Brooks as base knowledge to be applied to the specific area you specialize in. With USATF you can further expand your knowledge of science if you choose the courses offered in their on-line campus. These courses are excellent and Christine Brooks will answer any questions you may have. I can attest to that.

I started a youth track series a decade ago and applied for a grant through USATF. They gave us $5,000 with no questions asked. We really needed it at the time. Now we have over 500 kids showing up for each meet and the meet is free. No money grabbing going on here!!

USATF is a first class organization. Yes, it has its flaws but the people I have been involved with have the best intentions for our sport. Terry Crawford is fantastic as the director coaching education.

Many of the people involved in these programs have written the books that you suggest we read. I have and will continue to read. But I have also developed a relationship with a lot of these people so I can share ideas with them and get their input. These opportunities have all come from being involved I the coaching education program.

A truly educated person would not formulate an opinion like yours from a base of ignorance.

Otter - what you are saying probably reinforces what I was attempting to get across but got sidetracked in my vent on the title of "certified" that now goes with the education process.

Vigil, Seagrave, Gambetta, Miles, I could go on and on, these are are coaches who I have been able to meet through coaching networks or clinics, had extended meaningful conversations with over the years and continued to learn from.

My point was that our focus should be on the education, not the certification.

Unfortunately, I have encountered too many people more concerned with the certification than the education and then I see how that impacts our sport.

My feelings and opinion are that we should continue to offer these education opportunities, have "prerequisites" and advanced stages of education but remove the "certification" title because it will filter the pond. The people who truly care to be educated will still be the ones having breakfast with Vigil!