This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 21 May 2015, At: 14:49 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
Physical and Performance Characteristics of NCAA Division I Football Players a
a
Kris Berg , Richard W. Latin & Thomas Baechle a
b
University of Nebraska–Omaha , USA
b
Physical and Exercise Science Department , Creighton University , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Kris Berg , Richard W. Latin & Thomas Baechle (1990) Physical and Performance Characteristics of NCAA Division I Football Players, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61:4, 395-401, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1990.10607504 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1990.10607504
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
BERO, LATIN, AND BAIlCULB
REsEARCH NOTB
REsEARCH QUARTERLY
FOR EXERCSB AND SPORT
1990, VOL. 61, No.4, pp. 395-401
Physical and Performance Characteristics of NCAA Division I Football Players KRIS BERG AND RICHARD W. LATIN University of Nebraska at Omaha
Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:49 21 May 2015
THOMAS BAECHLE Creighton University
Key words: football,physicalfitness,physicalperformance,
college sports
N early all football players at the collegiate level today participate in extensive weight training and conditioning programs aimed at producing larger, faster, and stronger athletes. Although speed, size, and strengthare undoubtedly key factors in footballperformance, limiteddescriptive information exists about these variables in collegiate football players. Considering thegreatpopularityof footballand thelarge numberof participants nationwide, it is surprising how little researchdata exist on the sport. In comparison, a large body of literatureexists for a numberof other sports(Berg & Bell, 1980; Berg,Blanke,&Miller,1985; Conger&Macnab, 1967; Dillman,1975;McArdle,Magel,&Kyvallos,1971;Nelson& Gregor, 1976; Pollock, 1977). This research has provided useful information to coaches, athletes,and recreational fitness enthusiasts. In 1942,Welhamand Behnkeassessedthe bodycompositionof oneprofessional footballteam.Mostof theliterature onfootball sincethenhasbeendescriptiveinnature(Wickhiser & Kelly, 1975; Wilmore & Haskell, 1972; Wilmore et al., 1976). Arnold,Brown, and Micheli (1980) used anatomical andphysiological dataon 56collegeplayerstopredictplaying success. McDavid(1977)developeda football-potential test andin 67collegeplayersfounditcorrelatedwell(r =.84)with the ranking of players by the coaching staff. Wilmore et al. (1976) characterized 185 professional football players and expressedtheopinionthatthebestplayersateachpositionhad the greatest power score as measured with an electronic dynamometerat anangularvelocity of 1800 ·S·I. Morerecently Olson and Hunter (1985) compared the size, strength, and speedof thirteen 1974and 1984NCAADivisionI teams.At most positions the 1984 players were found to be taller, heavier,stronger,and faster.
Toourknowledge, no studyhasassessedtherelationship of size, strength, speed, power, and body fat in Division I college football players to team success, and there are only limited normative data on these variables. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe 65 Division I NCAA football teamswithrespectto height,weight,benchpressand squat strength, 40-yd dash speed, vertical jump, and body fatness. Additional comparisons weremadeof (a)rankedand unranked teamsin the final Associated Press (AP)or United Press International (UPI) Top 20 for 1987, (b) offensiveand defensive players, (c) positions, (d) major football conferences,and (e) therelationship betweenselectedvariables and fmalrank.
Method Surveysweresenttothestrengthandconditioning coach, if known, or the head footballcoach of 65 DivisionI NCAA universities, including all teamsrankedin the finalAPor UPI Top 20 poll for 1987.In accordancewithinstitutional human subjectresearchguidelines, informedconsentwasimpliedby receipt of the survey.Explanations includeda statementthat the name of a specific school would not be given without permission. These schools represented seven athletic conferences andselectedindependentsthoughttoberepresentative of majorNCAADivisionI collegefootballprograms. Fortyone institutions responded, but excessivemissingdata from one schoolprecludedits use in data analysis. Toenhancethereturnrate,information wasrequested for only the starting player for each offensive and defensive position excludingkickers (n =22). All data reported were collectedbetweenthe spring of 1987and the start of the fall season. Institutions failingto respondto the initialletterwere
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERClSB AND SPORT, VOL.
395
61, No.4
Bsao, LATIN, AND BABCHLB
sent a second letter, and if they were a Top 20 ranked team, they were also contacted by telephone. A cover letter, data collection forms, and instructions were provided. The data collection forms requested respondents to indicate the method
used to assess selected variables (e.g., skinfold thickness or hydrostatic weighing to determine percentbody fat, electronically timed or hand-timed with stop watch for 40-yd dash). Data requested included height, weight, 40-yd dash time, vertical jump, percent body fat, and one repetition maximum (1 RM) bench press and parallel squat. From these data, strength was divided by body weight to express bench press and squat relative to weight (i.e., as a percent). Vertical jump was expressed in centimeters and was also converted to power (kgm-s') using the Lewis Nomogram (Fox & Mathews, 1981). The validity of these data is limited by the fact that measurements were made by many different people using no preestablished methodology. For example, 40-yd dash time was measured at most schools by stopwatch; only two used electronic measurement. However, 40% of the institutions responding employ conditioning coaches certified by the National Strength and Conditioning Coaches Association who have received training in the assessments used. To facilitate data analysis, positions were grouped into the following categories: (a) quarterbacks; (b) offensive backs; (c) tight ends; (d) wide receivers; (e) offensive tackles, guards, and centers; (f) defensive linemen; (g) linebackers; and (h) defensive backs. Data analysis included calculation of descriptive statistics, multiple regression to predict final AP/UPI rank using the fitness and performance variables, analysis of variance (ANOVA) to make comparisons, omega squared (02 x 100) to provide the percent variance explained by the variables, and Spearman rank order correlations to examine selected relationships. Due to the large number of comparisons made, an alpha level of .01 was used to reduce the probability of making a Type I decision error.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:49 21 May 2015
Table 1 Universities and Conferences Responding to Survey Percent
Conference
University
Big Eight
Iowa State Kansas State Missouri Nebraska t Oklahoma t Oklahoma State t
75.0
Big Ten
Illinois Indiana t Iowa t Purdue
50.0
Pacific Ten
Arizona Arizona State t Oregon Stanford UCLAt
70.0
usc t Washington Southeast
Auburn t Mississippi State "t
40.0
Southwest
Rice Texas A&Mt Texas Christian
44.4
Western Athletic
Air Force Brigham Young Hawaii New Mexico Texas-EI Paso Utah Wyoming
77.8
Atlantic Coast
Clemson t
12.5
lndependsnttt
Florida State t Miami t Notre Dame t South Carolina t Syracuse t West Virginia
Results and Discussion Although the alpha level was set at .01 to reduce the probability of making decision errors, the large number of comparisons and largeN resulted in a number of statistically significant differences. Although statistical significance indicates the confidence that a difference actually exists, it does not address the magnitude of the difference. Many of these observed significant differences were small, but at these high levels of competition, relatively small differences may be important. To facilitate interpretation of these differences, omega squared (02 x 100) analysis was used. This statistic determines the percent variance common to each variable (Hays, 1981). Across all comparisons made in the data analysis except for positions, 0 2 x 100 ranged from 0 to 21%. Table 1 lists the universities and respective conferences that participated in this study. Seven conferences were represented as well as six independent schools. Five of the conferences had a 50% or greater representation. A total of40 of the 65 (61.5%) schools that were contacted returned question-
100.0
"Teams requesting to remain anonymous. tA Top 20 team. ttA select group of the major independents was sampled.
RESIlARCII QUARTERLYPOR EXBRClSEAND SPORT, VOL.
396
61, No.4
BERO, LATIN, AND BAECHLB
nairesthatwereutilizedinsubsequentanalyses.Seventeen of the respondents were ranked within the Top 20 in either the fmal AP or UPI poll. Thus, the data appear to provide an accuratedescription of major collegefootballprograms. Thedescriptive datafor all subjectsappearin Table2. To our knowledge no studieshavereportedthecharacteristics of NCAADivisionI footballplayerswitha samplesize (N=563880) as large as that of the presentstudy. These data do well to typify this group of athletes because of the large sample
Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:49 21 May 2015
size.
Data comparingthe team mean scores across all of the variablesappear in Table 3. Significantdifferences (p
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
Physical and Performance Characteristics of NCAA Division I Football Players a
a
Kris Berg , Richard W. Latin & Thomas Baechle a
b
University of Nebraska–Omaha , USA
b
Physical and Exercise Science Department , Creighton University , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Kris Berg , Richard W. Latin & Thomas Baechle (1990) Physical and Performance Characteristics of NCAA Division I Football Players, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61:4, 395-401, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1990.10607504 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1990.10607504
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
BERO, LATIN, AND BAIlCULB
REsEARCH NOTB
REsEARCH QUARTERLY
FOR EXERCSB AND SPORT
1990, VOL. 61, No.4, pp. 395-401
Physical and Performance Characteristics of NCAA Division I Football Players KRIS BERG AND RICHARD W. LATIN University of Nebraska at Omaha
Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:49 21 May 2015
THOMAS BAECHLE Creighton University
Key words: football,physicalfitness,physicalperformance,
college sports
N early all football players at the collegiate level today participate in extensive weight training and conditioning programs aimed at producing larger, faster, and stronger athletes. Although speed, size, and strengthare undoubtedly key factors in footballperformance, limiteddescriptive information exists about these variables in collegiate football players. Considering thegreatpopularityof footballand thelarge numberof participants nationwide, it is surprising how little researchdata exist on the sport. In comparison, a large body of literatureexists for a numberof other sports(Berg & Bell, 1980; Berg,Blanke,&Miller,1985; Conger&Macnab, 1967; Dillman,1975;McArdle,Magel,&Kyvallos,1971;Nelson& Gregor, 1976; Pollock, 1977). This research has provided useful information to coaches, athletes,and recreational fitness enthusiasts. In 1942,Welhamand Behnkeassessedthe bodycompositionof oneprofessional footballteam.Mostof theliterature onfootball sincethenhasbeendescriptiveinnature(Wickhiser & Kelly, 1975; Wilmore & Haskell, 1972; Wilmore et al., 1976). Arnold,Brown, and Micheli (1980) used anatomical andphysiological dataon 56collegeplayerstopredictplaying success. McDavid(1977)developeda football-potential test andin 67collegeplayersfounditcorrelatedwell(r =.84)with the ranking of players by the coaching staff. Wilmore et al. (1976) characterized 185 professional football players and expressedtheopinionthatthebestplayersateachpositionhad the greatest power score as measured with an electronic dynamometerat anangularvelocity of 1800 ·S·I. Morerecently Olson and Hunter (1985) compared the size, strength, and speedof thirteen 1974and 1984NCAADivisionI teams.At most positions the 1984 players were found to be taller, heavier,stronger,and faster.
Toourknowledge, no studyhasassessedtherelationship of size, strength, speed, power, and body fat in Division I college football players to team success, and there are only limited normative data on these variables. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe 65 Division I NCAA football teamswithrespectto height,weight,benchpressand squat strength, 40-yd dash speed, vertical jump, and body fatness. Additional comparisons weremadeof (a)rankedand unranked teamsin the final Associated Press (AP)or United Press International (UPI) Top 20 for 1987, (b) offensiveand defensive players, (c) positions, (d) major football conferences,and (e) therelationship betweenselectedvariables and fmalrank.
Method Surveysweresenttothestrengthandconditioning coach, if known, or the head footballcoach of 65 DivisionI NCAA universities, including all teamsrankedin the finalAPor UPI Top 20 poll for 1987.In accordancewithinstitutional human subjectresearchguidelines, informedconsentwasimpliedby receipt of the survey.Explanations includeda statementthat the name of a specific school would not be given without permission. These schools represented seven athletic conferences andselectedindependentsthoughttoberepresentative of majorNCAADivisionI collegefootballprograms. Fortyone institutions responded, but excessivemissingdata from one schoolprecludedits use in data analysis. Toenhancethereturnrate,information wasrequested for only the starting player for each offensive and defensive position excludingkickers (n =22). All data reported were collectedbetweenthe spring of 1987and the start of the fall season. Institutions failingto respondto the initialletterwere
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERClSB AND SPORT, VOL.
395
61, No.4
Bsao, LATIN, AND BABCHLB
sent a second letter, and if they were a Top 20 ranked team, they were also contacted by telephone. A cover letter, data collection forms, and instructions were provided. The data collection forms requested respondents to indicate the method
used to assess selected variables (e.g., skinfold thickness or hydrostatic weighing to determine percentbody fat, electronically timed or hand-timed with stop watch for 40-yd dash). Data requested included height, weight, 40-yd dash time, vertical jump, percent body fat, and one repetition maximum (1 RM) bench press and parallel squat. From these data, strength was divided by body weight to express bench press and squat relative to weight (i.e., as a percent). Vertical jump was expressed in centimeters and was also converted to power (kgm-s') using the Lewis Nomogram (Fox & Mathews, 1981). The validity of these data is limited by the fact that measurements were made by many different people using no preestablished methodology. For example, 40-yd dash time was measured at most schools by stopwatch; only two used electronic measurement. However, 40% of the institutions responding employ conditioning coaches certified by the National Strength and Conditioning Coaches Association who have received training in the assessments used. To facilitate data analysis, positions were grouped into the following categories: (a) quarterbacks; (b) offensive backs; (c) tight ends; (d) wide receivers; (e) offensive tackles, guards, and centers; (f) defensive linemen; (g) linebackers; and (h) defensive backs. Data analysis included calculation of descriptive statistics, multiple regression to predict final AP/UPI rank using the fitness and performance variables, analysis of variance (ANOVA) to make comparisons, omega squared (02 x 100) to provide the percent variance explained by the variables, and Spearman rank order correlations to examine selected relationships. Due to the large number of comparisons made, an alpha level of .01 was used to reduce the probability of making a Type I decision error.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:49 21 May 2015
Table 1 Universities and Conferences Responding to Survey Percent
Conference
University
Big Eight
Iowa State Kansas State Missouri Nebraska t Oklahoma t Oklahoma State t
75.0
Big Ten
Illinois Indiana t Iowa t Purdue
50.0
Pacific Ten
Arizona Arizona State t Oregon Stanford UCLAt
70.0
usc t Washington Southeast
Auburn t Mississippi State "t
40.0
Southwest
Rice Texas A&Mt Texas Christian
44.4
Western Athletic
Air Force Brigham Young Hawaii New Mexico Texas-EI Paso Utah Wyoming
77.8
Atlantic Coast
Clemson t
12.5
lndependsnttt
Florida State t Miami t Notre Dame t South Carolina t Syracuse t West Virginia
Results and Discussion Although the alpha level was set at .01 to reduce the probability of making decision errors, the large number of comparisons and largeN resulted in a number of statistically significant differences. Although statistical significance indicates the confidence that a difference actually exists, it does not address the magnitude of the difference. Many of these observed significant differences were small, but at these high levels of competition, relatively small differences may be important. To facilitate interpretation of these differences, omega squared (02 x 100) analysis was used. This statistic determines the percent variance common to each variable (Hays, 1981). Across all comparisons made in the data analysis except for positions, 0 2 x 100 ranged from 0 to 21%. Table 1 lists the universities and respective conferences that participated in this study. Seven conferences were represented as well as six independent schools. Five of the conferences had a 50% or greater representation. A total of40 of the 65 (61.5%) schools that were contacted returned question-
100.0
"Teams requesting to remain anonymous. tA Top 20 team. ttA select group of the major independents was sampled.
RESIlARCII QUARTERLYPOR EXBRClSEAND SPORT, VOL.
396
61, No.4
BERO, LATIN, AND BAECHLB
nairesthatwereutilizedinsubsequentanalyses.Seventeen of the respondents were ranked within the Top 20 in either the fmal AP or UPI poll. Thus, the data appear to provide an accuratedescription of major collegefootballprograms. Thedescriptive datafor all subjectsappearin Table2. To our knowledge no studieshavereportedthecharacteristics of NCAADivisionI footballplayerswitha samplesize (N=563880) as large as that of the presentstudy. These data do well to typify this group of athletes because of the large sample
Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:49 21 May 2015
size.
Data comparingthe team mean scores across all of the variablesappear in Table 3. Significantdifferences (p
