Collegiate athletes are children all of the time.
High school coaches are in high school for their own reasons, and it is a great market to consult with since they often realize their knowledge is limited, and their athlete base is very different than recruited athletes.
Widest range of knowledge? Hmmm...
Knowledge? We would probably have to take a closer look. Knoeledge is a matter of education and experience integrated into a sound program. This requires both aptitude in gaining knowledge, aptitude in analyzing this knwoledge gained, and the ability to integrate this knowledge into a training environment that is limited by varying constraints.
Notice all of the aptitude emphasis. The first sign on aptitude and learning is constant questioning, probing, and the NEED to constantly read, communicate with others, etc.
Think a young S&C coach who constantly asks questions (like the specific questions I posed above) will be popular? Get good recs when trying to move on?
Think the industry is dominated by high SAT types? I am not saying they don't exist, but it is very seldom that a kid who enters college as a meatball suddenly chooses to read for hours every night after working 80-100+ hours a week.... we are what we are.
Plus, no matter how much you read or question, a 1400 SAT type and a 950 SAT type see very different things when they view the same material. One is figuring out how this underlying priciple, or root cause, or constraint will affect the overall training stimulus, while the other is trying to decide whether they should jot this down on a note card to remember it. One assimilates the information instantly, the other simply does not.
So while I do side with your statement if it were 'greatest experience', I must disagree with it as it stands. This comes from direct experience viewing actual training programs of Division I - III colleges.
You know you have an issue if:
The freshmen and seniors are all doing the same programs. There is no differentiation between Strength and Rate dominant athletes. There is no clear progression for things like plyometrics, and movement training.
Oh, and my own personal experience is that even football players do not do olympic lifts very well, as they almost ALWAYS (99%) block their hips on full extension trying to get back under the weight.
Train a movement pattern over and over under high force, and the movement becomes engrained. So when it is time to explode or accelerate, it is very common to see the athlete block full extension. This, coupled with such a huge squat emphasis, creates athletes who often truly never reach great triple extension, and have lost power at toe off. The guys at Inno-sport talked about this at length, and I see it often. A kid comes back with really nice progress developing an ass and thighs, but now runs like a nimrod. He scoots, but doesn't drive.
Olympic lifts, if taught correctly are great for FB players who need to develop extra muscle mass (beyond what would be optimal for actual locomotive optimization) in order to survive the sport. So the upper back, grip, and trap work is excellent.
But for sports like soccer, basketball, etc where extra weight is many times a constraining factor due to the greater energy system demands, there are many other triple extension exercises that develop RFD which are far simpler to teach and perform correctly. They are easily as safe as the o-lifts, or safer, and can be taught to near perfection in a single session, with just a little cueing needed ongoing.
Think of it this way Simco, if everyone needed the same stimulus at the same time, why do Christian, and Eric, and Chad all keep revealing new programs? So if you keep checking back weekly for new goodies, then you are on my side of the argument. Each athlete must be categorized and trained based on at least three things:
Dominant current underlying method of developing force (Rate or Strength).
Sport and positional needs.
If all of these things are being accounted and differentiated for, then you are on track. Then 'little things' like injuries, etc must be factored in.... the depth is only limited by your athlete load, work rate, and time.
I would continue, but I am watching the UF vs. GA replay, and Urban's continuing evolution of his spread system just made me puke in my own mouth (I was an OC also), so I must go rinse.
I do love the loyalty sticking up for the industry Simco, and I definitely honor the great S&C coaches I have met by praising their work, and more importantly by implementing their principles. But to make a blanket statement about an industry that would aks great minds (who could actually advance the industry) to work for very low wages and long hours throughout their life is silly.
I was talking with an lady who places graduates with bachelors degrees and she said that Target hires in high performers at 40-45k for management, and once you get your own store, it is a six figure position.
So if a big box discount retailer is far outpaying the S&C industry as a whole (which until you get to the highest levels literally asks you to work for no pay or pay that is less than beginning HS teachers), we will never attract the best minds. Only the best minds that place hanging out in the weigthroom above providing their own children with opportunities. I like hanging out and watching jacked guys bench press as much as the next guy, but c'mon.
Ok, need to go rinse. Urban is now being interviewed and I puked again watching the replays.