Criterion-Based Groin Rehab: A Coach’s Playbook for Faster RTP

Injuries happen, even to the most prepared athletes. For coaches and performance staff, the challenge goes beyond getting players back on the field. They must be sure the athletes return stronger, more resilient, and less likely to relapse. That’s where criterion-based groin rehab comes in.

This approach was the focus of a recent FYTT-hosted webinar featuring Connor Schoepp, Return to Play Specialist and Owner/Operator of Rebuild Performance & Rehab. With over a decade of experience at the private, collegiate, and professional levels, Connor has specialized in return-to-play, speed development, and applied sport science. His perspective blends clinical precision with performance-driven methods, making his insights valuable for strength and conditioning coaches seeking practical frameworks.

Instead of relying on outdated timelines or general rehab models, Connor’s framework emphasizes early optimal loading, progressive criteria-driven benchmarks, and collaborative planning between medical, performance, and sport staff. The result: athletes don’t just recover, they come back with a heightened level of preparedness.

This post distills Connor’s approach into practical lessons coaches can apply in their own settings, including principles, progressions, and exit criteria for adductor strains and other groin injuries.

Why Criterion-Based Rehab?

Traditional rehab often leans on rest, passive treatments, and arbitrary timelines. That model can leave athletes detrained and unprepared when they re-enter competition. By contrast, criterion-based groin rehab uses objective tests and progressive loading to guide decisions. Coaches know exactly when an athlete is ready for the next step.

Recent evidence backs this up. A prospective cohort study found that athletes following a criteria-based adductor injury rehab program returned to play in as little as 2-3 weeks for lower-grade strains, with low reinjury rates compared to timeline-only approaches (study link). This underscores the advantage of using clear exit criteria instead of guessing.

Key differentiators of the criterion-based model:

Principles-driven: Built around progressive overload, specificity, and vertical integration.
Continuum mindset: Rehab progresses from general to specific, simple to complex, isolated to integrated.
Scalable framework: Applicable to both short-term strains (days to weeks) and long-term recoveries (months to years).
Objective criteria: Benchmarks like ROM symmetry, strength ratios, and pain thresholds replace guesswork.

Phase 1: Restore Range and Control

Goals: Reduce pain, restore mobility, normalize walking gait.
Methods: Passive treatments (EMS, BFR, massage), light isometrics (as early as hours post-injury), and motor control retraining.
Exit Criteria: Diagnosis confirmed, pain reduced, tolerance to low-intensity isometrics, normalized gait.

Understanding pathology and management helps frame expectations. According to StatPearls’ review on adductor strains, most injuries respond well to conservative rehab emphasizing early mobility and strengthening, though the clinician must monitor for chronic groin pain or complications like sports hernia.

Phase 2: Rebuild Strength and Movement

Goals: Progress strength, tissue tolerance, and introduce return-to-run drills.
Methods:
- Isometric progression: Extensive -> intensive (e.g., Copenhagen plank progressions) -> dynamic (eccentrics emphasized).
- Conditioning: Linear and multidirectional progressions, monitored via pain and perceived intensity ratings.
- Drill design: Always scalable, avoiding unnecessary jumps in load.
Exit criteria: Tolerance to dynamic contractions, sprinting and multidirectional work >/= 85% of baseline, adduction-to-abduction ratio within 80-120%.

Flexibility and mobility should complement these phases. A systematic review notes that while stretching alone shows limited impact on groin pain, integrating targeted mobility with strength progressions improves outcomes (critical review). For coaches, this means mobility drills should supplement -never replace- criteria-based strengthening.

“Every rep in return-to-run should be tracked for pain and perceived effort.”

Phase 3: Reintegrate and Optimize

Goals: Prepare for full return to practice and competition
Methods:
- End-range strengthening, oscillatory isometrics, repeat sprint, and game simulations.
- Collaboration with sport coaches to ensure skill-specific reintegration.
- Progressive load scheme: Week 1 at 55% of team load -> Week 4 at 100%.
Exit criteria: Clearance by medical staff, tolerance to training demands, ROM within benchmarks, <10% asymmetry, >/= 6% increase in adduction peak force.

“Long-term rehab is a rare opportunity to refine skills and set athletes up for the rest of their careers.”

Practical Takeaways for Coaches

Prioritize objective measures over timelines.
Use isometrics early and eccentric progressively.
Monitor intra- and inter-limb asymmetries.
Address not just tissue tolerance but also movement strategy and motor control.
Scale rehab to match both the athlete’s needs and the season context.

For further applied sport science reading, see FYTT resources on the athletic performance curve, individualized training, and ACL rehab lessons.

Q&A with Connor Schoepp

FYTT: If you could add only one exercise to help athletes avoid groin injuries, what would it be?

Connor Schoepp: That’s a tough one. I’d say any progressive loading for the groin area that accounts for the sport’s demands. For most athletes, isometrics are key. Copenhagen planks and lying med ball groin squeezes are two of my go-tos. But dosage matters. Some athletes need 3-4 sets a week, while those in congested schedules don’t need more stress added.

FYTT: What about asymmetrical athletes, like throwers?

Connor Schoepp: I’ve worked with baseball players in that situation. The biggest issue isn’t strength, it’s range of motion. The approach is similar - just slow-cook the return-to-throw process. The criteria don’t change much; you just tailor them to the asymmetry.

Groin injuries can be frustrating and complex. But with criterion-based groin rehab, coaches and practitioners have a roadmap that’s scalable, objective, and collaborative. Instead of hoping athletes are ready, you’ll know they are.

Watch Schoepp’s full presentation on YouTube.

Learn how FYTT can help consolidate performance monitoring to streamline return-to-play protocols.

Systemizing Strength & Conditioning in Baseball: Brad Lawson on Building Frameworks for Health and Performance

Major League Baseball is a marathon of outputs: 162 games in under 190 days, layered with cross-country travel, overnight flights, and relentless skill demands. To keep athletes healthy and performing, baseball strength and conditioning and performance staff need more than isolated drills or siloed testing. They need systems.

That is the philosophy of Brad Lawson, the Chicago White Sox Director of Strength and Conditioning (and former Giants, Cubs, and Nationals coach), who has spent more than 16 years inside MLB. In this FYTT session, Lawson laid out a framework for system-based player development: one that aligns staff, organizes data, and automates decisions without replacing the art of coaching.

Why Systems Matter in Baseball Performance

Baseball is chaotic: dense schedules, inconsistent travel, and constant stressors. Without structure, strength and conditioning departments risk fragmented methods that make it impossible to evaluate what is working.

Lawson compares it to the U.S. highway system: everyone is heading toward the same destination, winning, but without a roadmap, teams take inconsistent paths that waste time and resources.

A systems-based approach ensures:

Efficiency: Streamlined data collection and training.
Effectiveness: Methods matched to key performance indicators (KPIs).
Reliability: Processes that work across multiple athletes, levels, and seasons.
Repeatability: Consistent enough to audit outcomes and refine over time.

Step 1: Athlete Profiling and Monitoring

Athlete profiling is the cornerstone of Lawson’s system. It is more than running athletes through a battery of tests at the start of camp; it is about creating a living snapshot of what each player needs to perform their role in games. For MLB athletes, this means mapping game demands (for example, a center fielder’s sprint and agility needs vs. a pitcher’s power and recovery profile) and then testing against those benchmarks.

Brad relies on serial testing protocols to align with the concept of residual training effects. Speed qualities are retested weekly with countermovement jumps on force plates; strength qualities every four to six weeks with isometric belt squats; aerobic capacity every eight weeks using Wattbike tests. By spacing tests according to the shelf life of each quality, coaches avoid overtesting while still catching meaningful changes.

Other coaches at the pro and NCAA level follow similar philosophies, often with technology like Vald Performance’s NordBord for hamstring strength or Catapult GPS units for external load tracking. The difference with Lawson’s approach is how he ties these disparate data points together into one system; instead of collecting data for reports alone, he uses it as a real-time driver of programming.

FYTT supports this by letting staff build athlete profiles that automatically update with each new data input, whether from Catapult sensors or athlete surveys. Once data is entered, the platform triggers logic that adapts training prescriptions in minutes, not days.

Step 2: Building Infrastructure

Infrastructure is the bridge between raw data and actionable programming. Without it, test results become static PDFs sitting in staff inboxes. Lawson emphasizes two key pillars of infrastructure: a structured exercise library and periodization models tied to organizational values.

An exercise library is not just a catalog of lifts. In Lawson’s system, each exercise is mapped with substitutions and injury contingencies. For instance, if a pitcher suffers a wrist injury, the system can automatically swap a barbell front squat with a neutral-grip safety bar squat. This ensures that athletes stay on track with development plans instead of losing weeks to ad hoc modifications.

Periodization models form the second pillar. MLB’s dense season means traditional block periodization is impractical. Lawson prefers vertical integration, where all biomotor qualities (strength, speed, power, hypertrophy) are trained year-round but at variable intensities. Other practitioners, such as those in NCAA football, lean on high-low training models from Charlie Francis, consolidating high CNS days with heavy practices and saving low-load days for restoration. Brad’s infrastructure blends both: high CNS training paired with high-intensity practice days, and low CNS work paired with lighter sessions, ensuring stress is consolidated rather than spread haphazardly.

In FYTT, infrastructure takes the form of pre-built templates that codify periodization rules and substitution logic. Once set, these templates are applied dynamically to each athlete profile, ensuring consistency across hundreds of players.

Step 3: Automating Processes

Automation is where Lawson’s system achieves scale. Managing 200+ athletes across MLB affiliates is impossible with spreadsheets alone. Instead of rewriting programs for each player after every test, Brad uses conditional logic and decision trees to adjust programming automatically.

Conditional logic is simple: if a player’s NordBord score falls below a set threshold, they move into a hamstring risk group. The system then serves them a pre-programmed corrective or strengthening protocol without manual intervention. Decision trees take this further by layering multiple inputs: for example, combining countermovement jump asymmetry, wellness questionnaire scores, and Catapult workload data to decide whether an athlete should receive a full session, modified volume, or a recovery day.

This approach is not unique to Lawson; some NBA and Premier League performance departments use similar rules-based models, often with in-house data scientists coding workflows. The challenge is accessibility: most college and high school programs cannot afford analysts and custom software. FYTT lowers the barrier by embedding decision trees and automation directly into the platform. Coaches can codify their logic once, and FYTT applies it automatically across the roster whenever new data is entered.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

KPIs are the compass of Lawson’s system. Rather than tracking every available metric, he focuses on a handful that consistently correlate with performance outcomes: lean mass, impulse (via force plates), and biomechanical efficiency for pitchers.

Lean mass links strongly to velocity-based outcomes like exit velocity and sprint speed. Impulse captures the interplay of peak force and rate of force development, offering a clearer picture of power than a 1RM squat alone. For pitchers, lead-leg bracing efficiency often predicts velocity better than weight-room strength tests.

Other coaches emphasize different KPIs depending on context. College coaches may track squat or clean PRs as key indicators of strength transfer, while high school coaches often focus on simple, low-cost measures like vertical jump height or timed sprints. The trend across elite sport, however, is moving toward KPIs that combine biomechanical insight with sport-specific transfer.

FYTT makes KPI tracking actionable by aligning them with athlete profiles and decision trees. If a player’s KPI trendline dips, FYTT automatically modifies their training plan to address the deficit, rather than leaving it for staff to notice manually.

In-Season Testing and Microdosing

Lawson pushes against the idea that in-season training is just maintenance. With smart testing and microdosing, players can improve strength and power during the grind of 162 games.

Spring training: Full test battery (CMJ, isometric belt squat, aerobic conditioning tests).
In-season: Serial CMJs weekly, strength tests every 6–8 weeks, aerobic measures when appropriate.
Microdosing: Small, frequent exposures to key qualities (for example, 1–2 maximal sprints midweek, micro-dose strength circuits for position players).

For relievers, fatigue scores integrate pitch count, velocity, and workload history to adjust training. For position players, Lawson often schedules a single heavy lift day furthest from games, paired with micro-dose sessions earlier in the week.

This mirrors trends in other sports. Rugby and soccer teams, for example, use GPS data to microdose sprinting throughout congested schedules. The shared lesson: small exposures sustain qualities that would otherwise decline under competition density.

Automation and the Future of S&C

Does automation threaten S&C jobs? Lawson says no.

Automation equals downloading the coach’s brain. Conditional logic and decision trees simply codify what practitioners already know.
Human connection remains essential. Players still need hands-on guidance, motivation, and context.
Efficiency creates bandwidth. Systems free coaches from desk work so they can coach, teach, and lead.

In Brad’s view, the next decade of performance coaching will belong to those who can blend objective data systems with subjective coaching art. FYTT positions itself squarely in this middle ground: automating what can be automated, freeing coaches to do what only they can do.

A System-Based Blueprint for Baseball

Brad Lawson’s framework is a reminder that systems scale impact:

Create environments that maximize potential.
Profile and monitor athletes against real KPIs.
Build infrastructure connecting inputs to outputs.
Automate where possible, without losing the art of coaching.
Improve athletes in-season, do not just maintain.

In a sport defined by density, travel, and stress, this model provides clarity, consistency, and adaptability across a 200+ athlete organization.

Q+A: Brad Lawson on Systemizing MLB Strength & Conditioning

FYTT: Why do you emphasize systems so much in baseball?

Brad Lawson: MLB is chaotic: dense schedules, heavy travel, and constant stress. Without an organized framework, methods get inconsistent and you cannot evaluate impact. A system ensures efficiency, effectiveness, reliability, and repeatability.

FYTT: What big constraints do all clubs face?

Brad: Two universal ones: schedule density (162 games in ~190 days) and travel (cross-country, overnight flights, disrupted sleep). Then add stress from life, anxiety, and inevitable injuries.

FYTT: What is step one in your system?

Brad: Athlete profiling and monitoring. Build a profile against game demands and track serially based on residual training effects. Speed and power may change weekly; strength adapts over months.

FYTT: Can you give an example?

Brad: For an MLB center fielder, KPIs might be sprint speed, exit velocity, and bat speed. If they are below average in max velocity sprinting, training emphasizes speed and absolute power.

Audience: Which KPIs have been most useful?

Brad: Lean mass correlates with sprint speed, exit velocity, and pitch velocity. Force plate impulse is the strongest predictor of power. Pitch biomechanics, especially lead-leg bracing, matter for velocity.

Audience: How do you test in-season?

Brad: CMJ weekly; isometric belt squat every 6–8 weeks; aerobic measures sparingly. In spring training, full intake testing. Whenever possible, the test is the training.

FYTT: Can players improve in-season?

Brad: Yes. With microdosing, players can improve strength and power even during 162 games. The “grind” is often more psychological than physiological.

Audience: When do you microdose?

Brad: For position players and relievers: small, frequent exposures (for example, sprints or concise circuits). Starters can tolerate larger doses in a 5-day rhythm.

Audience: What is your go-to conditioning test?

Brad: Wattbike plus HR monitors for VO2max estimates, since everyone can complete it. Position players also do 20-yard sprints with lasers.

FYTT: How do you connect data to programs at scale?

Brad: Build exercise libraries with substitutions and periodized templates. Add automation: conditional logic and decision trees. For example, NordBord results auto-bucket players into risk groups with pre-set programs.

FYTT: How complex can decision trees get?

Brad: With the Giants we built a mobility tree using 15–20 inputs that created more than 500 possible program outputs. Testing data went in and within seconds players had individualized plans on their phones.

Audience: Does automation threaten coaching jobs?

Brad: Absolutely not. Automation scales coaching decisions; it does not replace coaching. Players still need hands-on teaching and buy-in.

Year-Round Baseball Performance with Hunter Lakey

Baseball is a game of outputs. Pitchers are measured by velocity. Hitters by exit speed. Fielders by the quickness of their first step. Across every role, speed, power, and resilience are the currencies of success.

That truth defines the philosophy of Hunter Lakey, Head of Baseball Strength and Conditioning at Georgia Southern University. Drawing on experience at Mississippi State, Elon, Texas A&M, and TCU under renowned coach Zach Dechant, Lakey has built a pragmatic framework that blends sport science with day-to-day coaching realities.

In this blog, we outline Lakey’s approach to building a year-round baseball performance system: the high–low model, vertical integration, season-long programming, athlete monitoring, and practical coaching insights. For those seeking deeper detail, the full transcript of Lakey’s conversation follows below.

Why Baseball Needs Its Own Model

Unlike football or basketball, baseball requires athletes to perform explosive, maximal outputs daily while navigating unpredictable game demands and long seasons.

Starters throw once a week and need structured recovery.
Relievers may pitch on three consecutive days with little predictability.
Position players endure 60+ games and scrimmages in college, plus practices and travel.

Traditional block periodization focusing weeks solely on strength, endurance, or speed doesn’t fit. Qualities like speed decay in five days or less if not trained. Lose a week of sprint exposure, and you’ve lost performance capacity.

Lakey emphasizes: freshness equals performance. Baseball strength and conditioning programming must develop strength, power, and speed while protecting recovery.

The High–Low Model

At the core of Lakey’s philosophy is the high–low model (adapted from Charlie Francis).

High days: Maximal central nervous system (CNS) stress. Max velocity sprints, heavy lower lifts, jumps, med ball throws.
Low days: Aerobic capacity, mobility, upper body lifts, regeneration.

This separation provides 48 hours of recovery between max efforts, preserving outputs and reducing overtraining.

“If you blur the line with medium days, you don’t get recovery or adaptation. High has to be high. Low has to be low.” Hunter Lakey

Sample Week (Offseason):

Monday: Sprint + Heavy Lower Lift (High)
Tuesday: Mobility + Aerobic Flush + Upper Lift (Low)
Wednesday: Sprint + Power Jumps + Lower Lift (High)
Thursday: Recovery Circuits (Low)
Friday: Speed + Competition Games (High)

This cycle lets athletes train outputs at intensity while still adapting long-term.

Vertical Integration: Training All Qualities Year-Round

Lakey uses vertical integration, meaning all biomotor qualities are trained continuously, just in different doses depending on the season.

Speed and power — trained every week.
Strength and hypertrophy — emphasized in offseason, tapered in-season but never dropped.
Aerobic base — maintained through tempo runs, mobility, and low days.

This ensures baseball athletes don’t “detrain” critical qualities while moving through the calendar.

The Yearly Calendar

Lakey divides the baseball year into four major phases:

1. Fall (August–November)

Individual period (Aug–Sept): Freshmen and transfers re-learn movement competency: sprint mechanics, squats, hinges, dribbles.
Fall Ball (Oct–Nov): With scrimmages, weight room volume is reduced, but intensity stays high. Pitchers train around bullpens; position players around scrimmages.

2. Post-Fall (Nov–Dec)

Pure development block.
Athletes bucketed into foundation, strength, and advanced groups.
Focus: aggressively pushing outputs before holiday break.

3. Preseason (Jan–Feb)

Return to scrimmage-heavy periods.
Weight room focus on refining patterns and prepping for in-season readiness.

4. In-Season (Feb–May)

Training doesn’t stop. Lakey rejects “maintenance.”
Velocity-based training (VBT) guides daily loads.
Pitchers: Lift the day after they throw.
Position players: Midweek lifts around games.
Relievers: Consistent weekly structure, flexible around usage.
Game-day lifts: Short, high-output CNS primers.

Programming by Role

Role-specific demands shape training:

Starters follow structured weekly recoveries.
Relievers maintain stable strength exposure despite unpredictable appearances.
Position players balance games with midweek lifts to preserve speed and power.

Monitoring and Adjustments

Lakey uses a blend of objective tools and subjective feedback:

Velocity-Based Training (VBT): Adjusts loads based on bar speed.
Sprint timing gates: Track acceleration and velocity.
CMJ / jump mats: Quick neuromuscular readiness checks.
Athlete questionnaires and observation: Stress from academics or travel weighs equally with training stress.

Practical Coaching Insights

Lakey emphasizes that science only works if athletes buy in:

Outputs require freshness. Speed and power come first.
Competition fuels intent. Jump mats, timing gates, and VBT add urgency and fun.
Holistic stress matters. Academics, travel, and lifestyle count.
Cook when the pan is hot. Push when athletes feel good, adapt when they don’t.

A Blueprint for Baseball Performance

Hunter Lakey’s approach offers a modern blueprint for baseball strength and conditioning programs and departments:

Organize training around outputs.
Use the high–low model to protect recovery.
Layer all qualities year-round with vertical integration.
Tailor programming by role.
Monitor, adjust, and emphasize athlete intent.

For collegiate, pro, and even high school baseball programs, this framework demonstrates how to balance science, art, and coaching to build resilient, explosive athletes ready for the long season ahead.

Full Transcript (Edited for Clarity)

FYTT: Hunter, thank you for joining us. Can you share your overall philosophy on training baseball athletes?

Hunter Lakey: For me, everything in baseball comes down to outputs. Velocity, sprint speed, exit velocity; those are the markers of success. To consistently improve those, athletes have to be fresh when it matters. That’s where the high–low model comes in: keeping high days truly high and low days truly low. We chase outputs on high days like max sprinting, heavy lower body lifts, and jumps, and we recover on low days with aerobic work, mobility, upper body lifts.

FYTT: You mentioned the high–low model. How does that look across a week?

Hunter Lakey: High days are money days; max velocity sprints, power jumps, heavy compound lifts. Low days are flush days: mobility, aerobic capacity, accessory work. By separating them, athletes get 48 hours to recover before the next max-output session. If you blur the line with medium days, you don’t get recovery or adaptation.

FYTT: How does vertical integration fit into your programming?

Hunter Lakey: Vertical integration means all biomotor qualities are trained year-round, just in different doses. Traditional block periodization might give you a month of strength or a month of speed, but speed has a short shelf life; about five days. If you don’t train it weekly, you lose it. So in my program, speed, power, strength, hypertrophy, aerobic qualities, and even skill are always present, just with different emphasis depending on the season.

FYTT: Walk us through your annual plan.

Hunter Lakey:

Individual period (Aug–Sept): Teach movement competency. Freshmen especially need foundations.
Fall Ball (Oct–Nov): With scrimmages, we taper volume in the weight room but keep intensity high. Position players train around scrimmage days, pitchers around live throwing.
Post-Fall (Nov–Dec): No games, pure development block. Athletes are bucketed: foundation, strength, advanced. Outputs are pushed hard before break.
Preseason (Jan–Feb): Training around scrimmages again, but prepping for in-season demands.
In-Season (Feb–May): We don’t maintain, we train. VBT helps adjust daily loads. Starters lift the day after they throw, position players midweek, relievers consistently.

FYTT: How do you monitor readiness?

Hunter Lakey: VBT is huge; if bar speed drops, we pull back. Sprint gates and jump mats track readiness. But the biggest thing is conversation. If a guy feels off, we adjust. Stress is holistic; if academics are heavy, that counts.

FYTT: What advice would you give young strength coaches?

Hunter Lakey: Know a little about a lot before specializing. Learn general sport performance first. Then, if you want to go deep in baseball, find a mentor. I moved across the country to work under Zach Dechant unpaid because I knew I needed that education. Relationships and internships matter. And don’t gatekeep: share what you learn.

Using Baseline Testing to Drive Early Season Programming in Sports

Why Baseline Testing Is Important

In elite sport, success is built on precision. Nowhere is that more critical than in the transition from off-season to preseason, a period where performance and injury risk are both peaking. For strength and conditioning coaches, sports scientists, athletic trainers, and performance directors, this window demands a level of insight that guesswork can’t deliver. This is where baseline testing becomes essential.

A Foundation for Individualization

At its core, baseline testing establishes the objective starting point for every athlete in your program. Whether they’re returning from injury, coming off a full off-season program, or arriving deconditioned, your athletes enter the building in vastly different states. Testing creates the clarity needed to tailor programming by individual, not assumption.

A vertical jump might reveal a drop in concentric force. Sprint times could show acceleration asymmetries. A groin squeeze test may uncover underlying instability. Together, these markers allow coaches to adjust loading schemes, modify technical drills, or build individualized return-to-play plans.

Without testing, these decisions rely on observation and instinct. With testing, they’re anchored in data. A Science for Sport article on Chelsea FC’s preseason testing strategy outlines how their performance staff assesses neuromuscular fatigue, force asymmetries, and physical readiness on day one.

Aligning Departments Around a Common Language

One of the most overlooked benefits of baseline testing is that it aligns the entire performance department. Each unit of strength & conditioning, sports medicine, sport science, nutrition, and coaching comes with its own language and lens. Baseline testing provides the objective data set that everyone can reference.

Take, for example, a midfielder flagged with below-average aerobic fitness and low neuromuscular power. The S&C coach adjusts conditioning blocks. The nutritionist increases carb intake. The sport scientist tracks fatigue trends. The athletic trainer layers in prehab for prior injury risk. And the head coach tempers early-season workloads. One data point, five actions, all coordinated.

This shared visibility prevents siloed decision-making and elevates the level of care an athlete receives.

Injury Prevention and Athlete Availability

The early preseason period is one of the highest-risk windows for soft tissue injuries. Why? Because athletes are rapidly increasing training volume and intensity after a relative off-season, often without sufficient load monitoring. Baseline testing helps mitigate this spike by identifying red flags before they turn into injuries.

Athletes with asymmetrical jump profiles can be flagged for lower limb screening.
Low groin squeeze scores may lead to reduced exposure to lateral cutting.
Decreased sprint times can prompt a taper or modified running dose.

As Catapult notes in their “Four Elements of Preseason Success,” establishing an evidence-based starting point is critical for injury risk management and session design. Similarly, VALD emphasizes that the early weeks of preseason present an ideal window to track fatigue and performance adaptations to ensure appropriate exposure.

Performance Optimization

Baseline testing isn’t just about injury prevention; it’s also the launching point for performance enhancement. By understanding each athlete’s unique profile, you can tailor blocks that develop the right qualities at the right time.

For example:

A power athlete with a strong RSI but low aerobic capacity may benefit from repeated sprint conditioning early in preseason.
A sprinter with high peak velocity but poor acceleration might start with resisted sprint work and technical drills.
A tall, late-maturing high school athlete may show solid strength but poor jump mechanics and be placed into a low-load movement prep block before progressing.

These aren’t guesses. They’re strategic decisions based on real-world data.

Return-to-Play Calibration

For athletes returning from injury, baseline testing serves as both a starting point and a benchmark. By comparing current outputs to historical norms or to positional averages, staff can determine readiness and progressions more confidently.

This isn’t limited to elite pro settings. Even at the college and high school levels, using simple testing like jump asymmetry or groin squeeze data allows you to remove guesswork from RTP and protect athletes from reinjury.

“Athletic development is complex. Baseline testing should be a meaningful first step that organizes and clarifies variables, identifies rate-limiters, and moves the needle on performance.”

—Geoffrey Ebbs, Northeastern University

Case Study: University of Nebraska

When Hayden Jones, Assistant Strength Coach at the University of Nebraska, relied on spreadsheets, baseline testing data often sat unused because applying it to programming was too time-consuming. FYTT changed that by automating athlete grouping based on test metrics like jump performance, range of motion, and strength assessments. This automation let Hayden instantly modify workouts for clusters of athletes, streamline recovery and RTP adjustments, and communicate insights clearly to sport coaches. The result: faster, more efficient programming, higher athlete engagement, and the ability to use testing data to drive real-time training decisions — all while freeing up time to focus on research, strategy, and long-term athlete development.

Baseline Testing Best Practices

If Section 1 explains why baseline testing matters, this section outlines how to execute it with precision, consistency, and impact. Testing is only as valuable as the decisions it influences, and decisions are only as strong as the data they’re based on. That’s why planning, execution, and alignment are critical.

Ask First: What Will This Test Tell Us?

Before choosing any metric, your staff should collectively answer one question:

What do we want to learn and what action will we take with this data?

Many teams test too much and apply too little. A 40-metric battery won’t help if no one is using the information. The key is to align tests with actionable outputs.

Here’s a simplified decision tree:

If an athlete scores poorly, will it change how we program their training?
If an athlete excels, will it affect their loading or conditioning?
Does this test support decisions across multiple departments (S&C, ATC, sport science, nutrition)?

If the answer is “no,” drop the test. If “yes,” keep it and define exactly how it will be used.

Build a Core Testing Battery

The best programs develop repeatable, efficient testing systems centered on the sport’s demands and the staff’s capacity. Here’s a modern, scalable example:

Category	Test	Purpose	Decisions Driven
Power	CMJ w/ force plate	Concentric force, RFD, fatigue	Loading intensity, block assignment
Speed	10m, 20m sprint (timing gates)	Acceleration profile	Sprint tech, resisted runs, velocity
Stability	Groin Squeeze, IMTP	Isometric force, asymmetry	RTP criteria, prehab, restrictions
Conditioning	YoYo IRT or 30-15 IFT	Energy system readiness	Tempo vs. repeat sprint exposure
Subjective	Wellness survey + soreness	Readiness, fatigue, sleep, stress	Daily adjustments, deload calls
Body Comp	Skinfolds or DXA	Lean mass, hydration, body fat %	Nutrition, energy availability

This battery can be completed in 60–90 minutes for a full squad when split across stations.

Execution: How to Run an Elite Test Day

Testing should feel seamless, not like a disruption to training. A typical setup:

Before Arrival:

Pre-load rosters and previous data
Assign athletes to groups (by jersey #, position, etc.)
Review cueing and test scripts with staff

During Testing:

Run warmups as part of the test protocol (e.g., CMJ comes after mobility)
Use stations for jump, strength, and sprint tests
Have clipboards, tablets, or phones to log and sync results instantly
Keep athlete flow moving without downtime

After Testing:

Upload results into a shared dashboard (e.g., FYTT)
Auto-cluster athletes (e.g., CMJ asymmetry > 10% = “yellow”)
Schedule debriefs with staff for results interpretation

Kinexon emphasizes that good test execution isn’t about tech; it’s about reducing lag time between insight and application. That starts with execution discipline.

Standardize Everything

Consistency is king. You can’t compare sprint data across time if one session is on turf at 6 a.m. and the next is on wet grass at 2 p.m.

Standardize:

Surface
Warm-up routine
Equipment (e.g., same force plate or jump mat)
Cueing language
Time of day
Recovery time between reps

The more repeatable your test environment, the more meaningful your trends.

“What I’m able to provide to my team is on a whole different level now. I can actually apply research and use my testing data instead of just collecting it. FYTT has truly changed the way I operate.”
— Hayden Jones, University of Nebraska

Timing & Frequency

Baseline testing isn’t a one-off. It should be part of a strategic calendar:

Phase	Purpose	Timing
Preseason	Establish baselines	Week 0–1
Early season	Adaptation check-in	Week 3–4
Mid-season	Regression/fatigue audit	Week 8–10
RTP/Return	Compare results to baseline benchmarks	Prior to reintegration

Some tests (like CMJ or wellness) can be repeated weekly for micro-trend monitoring. Others (like sprint or aerobic capacity) can be spaced monthly or quarterly.

Simplifaster advises that frequent, low-burden testing is better than occasional high-burden testing. CMJ takes 10 seconds. Why not use it weekly?

Athlete Engagement

Testing only works if the athlete engages. Give them:

Context: “Here’s what this test tells us.”
Feedback: “Here’s how you scored compared to last year.”
Ownership: “Here’s how this changes your training block.”

When athletes understand the “why” behind testing, both their effort and your data quality improves.

Integrating With Technology

The final pillar of testing success is integration. Your results should feed directly into:

Training load plans (daily/weekly)
Return-to-play calendars
Athlete development dashboards
Nutrition and recovery plans

Tools like FYTT allow you to assign color-coded readiness statuses, auto-generate individualized plans, and share real-time dashboards across S&C, ATC, and coaching staff. This is where testing stops being information and starts being action.

How to Bring Your Performance Staff Together for Programming

Even the best baseline testing protocols mean little if they don’t lead to unified action. The real power of testing lies in how it connects your entire performance department: strength and conditioning, sports science, athletic training, nutrition, and coaching. The goal should be to have a complementary performance plan for the athlete with shared insight and collective purpose.

Here’s how to operationalize that collaboration.

Start With a Shared Dashboard

Once testing is complete, upload all results into a centralized system accessible to every department. Whether you use FYTT or another athlete management tool, this dashboard should include:

Baseline values for all key metrics
Readiness flags (green, yellow, red)
Individual athlete notes (e.g., history, goals, limitations)
Comparison to previous data or position group norms

This shared source of truth eliminates miscommunication and empowers every staff member to plan interventions in alignment.

Strength & Conditioning: From Test to Block

The S&C coach is often the first to act on test data. Here’s how to structure programming from day one:

Neuromuscular Output (CMJ, IMTP)

→ Low RSI athletes get low-load plyometrics and concentric power blocks

→ High peak force but slow RFD athletes get velocity-based training with intent cues
Speed and Acceleration Data

→ Athletes with poor 10m split get sled sprints and resisted acceleration work

→ High max-velocity but poor acceleration athletes do contrast and fly-in work
Energy System Readiness

→ Low YoYo or 30-15 scores signal need for aerobic base (tempo runs, shuttle intervals)

→ High performers shift to repeat sprint or anaerobic capacity blocks

Example:

A college football athlete shows strong strength numbers but poor jump stiffness and YoYo endurance. Week 1 includes eccentric overload in the weight room and tempo intervals twice weekly — with no sprint exposure until week 2.

Sports Medicine & Athletic Trainers: Program for Prevention and RTP

Testing gives ATCs a roadmap for both prehab and reintegration. Use testing to:

Flag asymmetries and assign corrective routines
Set RTP benchmarks (e.g., groin squeeze > 90% of pre-injury norms)
Build rehab progressions based on trend data, not timelines

Example:

A basketball player returning from hamstring strain shows acceptable sprint splits but lingering asymmetry in force plate CMJ. The ATC collaborates with S&C to delay max-effort sprint exposure until symmetry improves.

Sport Science: Load Management and Longitudinal Monitoring

The sport science team’s role is to monitor adaptations, not just collect data.

Use testing to:

Flag negative trends (decline in CMJ, poor sprint times, high soreness scores)
Detect readiness shifts and adjust workload (volume, intensity, frequency)
Support the case for deloads or conditioning plan changes

Example:

By week 3 of preseason, four athletes show CMJ regressions and increased wellness fatigue scores. The sport scientist recommends a reduced lift volume and lighter field session for that cluster.

Nutrition: Fueling Programming, Not Just the Athlete

Nutritionists can use testing to inform:

Energy system-specific fueling

→ Low aerobic test = carb-focused pre-training meals
Recovery and hydration plans

→ High soreness = post-session recovery shakes or anti-inflammatory support
Body composition goals

→ Athletes with low lean mass get protein timing strategies and nutrition education

Example:

After testing, three soccer players are flagged for low YoYo output and underweight status. The nutritionist provides customized recovery meals and monitors post-test energy availability.

Coaching Staff: Training Design and Strategic Planning

From head coach to technical assistants, the entire coaching staff must understand how test results affect early season programming.

Use testing to:

Plan positional demands (e.g., don’t overload players with low readiness)
Make game rotation decisions during preseason friendlies
Coordinate minutes with S&C and ATC based on readiness markers

Example:

After testing reveals neuromuscular fatigue in 30% of the squad, the head coach modifies training intensity, shifts to technical work, and reduces scrimmage length for the week.

Weekly Integration Meetings

Best-in-class programs hold weekly interdisciplinary meetings to review:

New test results (if repeated)
Flags or trend concerns
Programming decisions per athlete or cluster
RTP status
Upcoming exposure planning

This keeps all departments proactive and synchronized.

Final Word

Baseline testing doesn’t live in a spreadsheet. It lives in decisions.

When departments work together from a shared data set, early season programming becomes safer, smarter, and more individualized, which is exactly what elite sport demands.

Breaking Down Silos in Soccer: A Conversation with Rob Gale, Head Coach of the Portland Thorns

Originally recorded as part of FYTT’s Soccer High Performance Webinar Series

🎥 Watch the full webinar

When Rob Gale stepped into the interim head coach role at the Portland Thorns just four matches into the 2023 NWSL season, he inherited not only a team but a complex ecosystem of performance departments. With over 20 years in professional football—including stints with Canada’s men’s national teams and NYCFC’s academy—Gale brought a collaborative, results-driven approach to managing the many moving pieces of elite sport.

In this interview-style recap of FYTT’s high-performance webinar, Rob shares how he leads across departments, structures training environments, and defines what true “availability” means in elite soccer.

FYTT: You’ve coached at nearly every level—from national teams to youth academies. What’s changed the most over the years?

Rob Gale: The game has gotten more complex. As a head coach now, you're not just managing the technical piece—you’re managing the entire performance ecosystem. Medical, sport science, administration, logistics, equipment—you have to coordinate all of it. And ultimately, the buck stops with you.

FYTT: You said the technical department is where you spend most of your energy. What’s your approach there?

Gale: Vision and clarity. I use a model I originally built at Valor FC that outlines our game model across four moments—attacking organization, attacking transition, defensive organization, and defensive transition. Each moment has two or three clear principles and match cues. We print this and post it in the locker room.

Our staff is small—just two assistants, a goalkeeper coach, and an analyst—so it’s critical that we all work off the same blueprint. Everyone owns a piece of the daily session. It’s not micromanaged, but it’s coordinated with clarity.

FYTT: How do you ensure the team is physically peaking on game day?

Gale: Periodization drives everything. We map out the entire month—recovery days, technical vs. tactical sessions, gym top-ups, travel, matchdays—then refine it weekly.

Each day includes a 7:30 a.m. staff meeting to align, then an 11:00 a.m. pitch session. Our sport science and medical teams provide player availability every morning, including what percent of the session each player can handle. That drives how we plan both the collective and the individual workloads.

FYTT: Speaking of availability, you redefined what that means at Portland. Can you explain?

Gale: When I arrived, there were vague ranges like “15 to 30 minutes available.” That doesn’t help me win games. Now, if you’re not available for at least 45 minutes, you’re not considered “available.” For starters, I expect 60 minutes minimum. I don’t want to be forced into a substitution unless it’s tactical.

That clarity helps my medical and performance teams build return-to-play protocols that match tactical demands.

FYTT: What’s the role of the equipment and admin staff in a professional environment?

Gale: Massive. We post field maps each day, so the equipment manager can lay everything out in advance. Between drills, they help clear setups and reset for the next phase. That keeps the session intense and fluid—just like match day.

Our admin team handles visas, housing, vehicles, social security numbers—everything a player needs to perform off the field. I always say: “How we exit a player matters just as much as how we welcome them.” A poorly handled trade or release hurts your reputation in the locker room and across the league.

FYTT: What does good collaboration look like between sport science and coaching?

Gale: No silos. We’ve built one shared Excel file that everyone can access—sport science, medical, technical, admin. That file drives daily decision-making.

We track GPS, high-speed runs, meters per minute, accelerations, decelerations—everything. But we don’t use data in a vacuum. My sport scientists know that performance pays our bills. So we blend science with the realities of the game. If Sophia Smith wants extra finishing, we find a way to support her without overloading.

FYTT: Any advice for young sport scientists trying to break into elite teams?

Gale: Don’t just quote numbers. Understand context. Support the coach’s plan. Learn what “availability” means in performance terms—not just medical clearance. Be a partner, not a roadblock.

FYTT: You’ve referred to substitutes as “finishers.” Why?

Gale: Language shapes identity. Calling them “subs” implies they're not first-choice. But when we’re missing nine players to international duty, those next players become starters. “Finishers” implies purpose—you're not just replacing someone; you're entering to win the match.

FYTT: Final thoughts?

Gale: Elite performance isn’t just about drills and tactics—it’s about clarity, communication, and culture. Break down silos. Respect every role. And remember: every department contributes to winning.

💡 FYTT Takeaway

Rob Gale’s approach embodies FYTT’s mission: integrating technical, medical, and performance staff into one cohesive unit. With clear planning, shared language, and a culture of collaboration, coaches can elevate both performance and player wellbeing.

Learn more about how FYTT powers high-performance teams → Free Trial