International Journal of Sports Science 2019, 9(4): 92-99

DOI: 10.5923/j.sports.20190904.03

NCAA In-Season Coaching Time Regulations Negate

Strength and Conditioning Gains in Women’s Division-II
Basketball Team
Zacharias Papadakis1,*, Andreas Stamatis2, Robert N. Padgett3, Brandon K. Sanders4

1
Human Performance Laboratory, Sport and Exercise Sciences, Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, USA
2
Sport and Wellness, State University of New York, Plattsburgh, NY, USA
3
Educational Psychology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA
4
Intercollegiate Athletics, Sport Performance, Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, USA

Abstract Strength and conditioning (SC) coaches are responsible for student-athletes’ conditioning. National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) time regulations may hinder SC coach’s success. This study aimed to characterize the effects of
NCAA in-season time restrictions of SC training on preseason lower-body power performance in a collegiate DII women’s
basketball team. During pre-season 14 players completed 3 hrs/wk of SC, while the in-season time was reduced to 2 hrs/wk.
Average countermovement jump (CMJ) height and peak average power (PAP) were measured 1/wk for 10 weeks. CMJ and
PAP examined relatively, allometrically scaled and analyzed using repeated measures ANOVAs primary for time and
secondary for position. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using R. Training
season differences were found for PAP (F(9, 117) = 4.63, p<.001, η2=.263) and scaled PAP scores (F(4.8, 62.4) = 2.78,
p=.0265, η2=.176). Pre-season PAP was higher than in-season controlling for player position (Est = 93.22 W, SE = 38.88, p
= .033). Forwards had higher PAP than guards (Est = 400.6 W, SE=157.7, p =.022). Scaled PAP was higher pre-season than
in-season controlling for player position (Est = 5.727(W ·kg-0.67), SE = .85, p =.002). SC program success is subjected to the
NCAA regulations. Three hrs/wk seem to be the threshold that below that pre-season lower-body performance gains during
the in-season are diminished. NCAA regulations may need to be revised so they do not influence the work of SC coaches.
Keywords Periodization, Countermovement jump, CSCS, Anaerobic power

more than 8 hours per week during pre-season (of which no

1. Introduction more than 2 hours per week will be spent on individual skill
workouts) and 20 hours (including practice and competition)
Strength and conditioning (SC) training for basketball per week during in-season [6]. In addition, NCAA Bylaw’s
requires a year-long commitment in periodization [1,2]. 17.1.5.1 and 17.1.5.2 restrict the in-season participation to
The ultimate goal is reaching peak performance at the maximum 4 hours per day [6].
appropriate time points [3]. Such accomplishment has been Basketball coaches are not allowed to conduct practice
the difference between winning teams and average teams [4]. sessions during off-season. When the academic year starts
However, in the sport of collegiate basketball in the US, they can work with maximum 4 athletes at the time and not
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for more than 2 hours per week. Such off-season restrictions
time-restricted SC practices may interfere with the allow for greater training volume from strength and
capitalization of the adaptive responses of the conditioning coaches (SCCs) compared to pre-season [1].
student-athletes to SC stimuli [5]. Female basketball players need to generate power,
For example, NCAA bylaw 2.14 governs the number of decelerate and accelerate quickly, change direction to a
hours student-athletes can be trained both for pre-season visual or auditory stimulus, and possess high levels of
and in-season. Division II student-athletes cannot be trained aerobic and musculoskeletal endurance [7,8]. Therefore, a
typical SC program will focus on the development of the
* Corresponding author: bioenergetic systems, agility, and muscular strength and
[email protected] (Zacharias Papadakis)
power [9,10]. Furthermore, due to the importance of the
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/sports
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Scientific & Academic Publishing
power element for the actual on-court basketball success,
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International SCCs are focusing throughout the year on increasing the
License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ lower-body performance on their athletes [8,11]. For
 International Journal of Sports Science 2019, 9(4): 92-99 93

example, lower-body performance (i.e. vertical jump height and Conditioning Association (NSCA) certified SCCs.
and power performance) is integral to the game of basketball Each athlete followed the same customized, periodized SC
[7,8,11-13]. Nevertheless, during the in-season phase, fitness team program. The authors assigned lower-body power
levels either remain unchanged or may decrease due to performance (i.e., average CMJ height and peak average
reduction in the frequency of the training sessions per week power) as variable of interest in order to examine differences
[14]. in lower-body power performance over the combined
The necessity to maintain lower-body performance during 4-week pre-season and 6-week in-season SC program.
in-season is paramount for providing a competitive edge. Countermovement vertical jump was selected due to
In-season SC training of 1-2 sessions per week in addition to sports-specific basketball relevance [13]. Peak anaerobic
the high-volume of skill training and competition has been power (PAP) values were calculated based on Sayers
shown to elicit beneficial effects on both countermovement formula and the obtained vertical jump height [16].
jump (CMJ) and generated power production on female PAP (Watts) = 60.7 x jump height (cm)
basketball players [15].
+ 45.3 x body mass (BM) (kg) – 2055 [16] (1)
To date, however, it is unknown whether changes in
frequency of a SC program may alter the well-documented Countermovement jump height and related power were
physiological adaptations in female basketball players expressed in relative terms. In addition to that, CMJ and
during pre-season and in-season [12,13]. With limited power data were normalized for body size using allometric
opportunity for in-season training due to NCAA regulations, scaling [17].
are SC periodized programs ineffective to serve their CMJn=CMJ/ BM0.67 [17] (2)
purpose? So, in other words, will the expected and observed 0.67
PAPn=PAP/BM [17] (3)
lower-body performance adaptations that occurred during
the pre- season period be lost during the in-season due to the Players provided their consent for these assessments as
less time spend in the weight-room? part of their sport requirement. Based on the archival nature
Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to of these data, this study was qualified for educational exempt
examine the effects of NCAA in-season time restrictions review and approved by the Ethics Committee of the
on SC training during pre-season lower-body power University’s Institutional Review Board for use of human
performance in a collegiate Division II (DII) women’s participants in research.
basketball team. The authors hypothesized that the NCAA
regulations in regards to time- and frequency-restriction of
SC program during in-season will not affect the observed
pre-season gains in lower-body performance.

2. Methods
2.1. Experimental Approach
Pre- and in-season 2018-2019 archival SC performance Note. See Table 1 for detailed explanation of the strength and conditioning
data from a NCAA DII women’s basketball team were used (SCC) program.
(i.e., body weight, CMJ height, and related power) in a Figure 1. Study design for weeks 1-4 and 5-10
retrospective longitudinal observational case study manner.
Data collected as part of the team’s usual pre- and in-season 2.2. Participants
performance testing routine. This routine consisted of a Fourteen DII female basketball players participating in the
periodized program for 10 weeks, which involved 4 weeks of South East Region basketball conference were assessed for
pre-season SC sessions followed by 6 weeks of in-season, their lower-body performance. Participants were between 18
playing 1-2 matches per week combined with basketball and 22 years old and their mean body mass was 71.4 kg  9.4.
practices as well as SC regimen (Table 1). Athletes were Participants had experience at national/international level.
familiar with all the testing and training sessions since they All international athletes have played at the club level in their
had completed these routines for at least one year. Pre-season respective countries. Playing positions were represented
SC program included upper and lower body exercises among the team as 6 forwards (F) and 8 guards (G) to
targeting strength and power. Lower-body performance was avoid bias effect of playing position on the lower-body
assessed at week-1 and every week until the week-10 using a performance [18].
countermovement jump.
All testing sessions were performed on a single day, 2.3. Countermovement Vertical Jump
during morning hours, in an air-conditioned facility during Countermovement vertical jump was measured using a
both the pre- and in-season, when no team basketball Just Jump System™ (Probotics, Huntsville, AL, USA) as
practice was scheduled and supervised by National Strength previously described [19]. A specific warmup was followed
94 Zacharias Papadakis et al.: NCAA In-Season Coaching Time Regulations Negate
Strength and Conditioning Gains in Women’s Division-II Basketball Team

involving: a) core exercise: (2x10) of deadbug, bird dog, and would hold a PVC pipe across their upper back to eliminate
prone shoulder tap and b) bar (45lb.) warmup: (2x5) of arm swing. When instructed, the athlete would perform a
Romanian Deadlift (RDL), squat, shoulder press, row. The squat jump, landing back in the same place from which they
CMJ was performed with the athlete standing still on the Just took off. The applied pre-season SC program that was
Jump Mat™, after the specific warm-up was performed with followed from week-1 until week-4 and in-season from
the same order: core/hip/barbell. Two box jumps onto an week-5 until week-10 is shown in Table 1.
18-inch box were done followed with two CMJ. The athlete
Table 1. Strength and conditioning program for weeks 1-4 and 5-10
Pre-Season: Week 1-4
Strength and
Skill Work Sessions Conditioning Workouts Open Gyms
Conditioning Workouts
Workouts conducted by the basketball
An informal practice, Basketball scrimmage
coach, focus on cardiovascular/
consisting of position Strength against each other.
muscular endurance. No basketball
specific drills No coaching instruction
specific skill work
2 day per week;
2 days per week; 1-hour session Hypertrophy 1 day a week; 1- hour
45-minute sessions
Lifts would be after practice Bodyweight Plyometrics
3 days per week;
1-hour sessions
In-Season: Week 5-10
Strength and Conditioning
Practice Official Games
Workouts
5 days a week; Focus for week 5-8 was general Team participated in 5 competitive games during the time
2-hour sessions strength of data collection
Note that on game days, they had a light practice for 1
Focus for week 9 and 10 was
hour, going over offensive plays and strategy on defending
strength and power
the opposing team. They also shot around more
2 days a week; 1-hour session
Lifts would be after practice

2.4. Statistical Analyses measures ANOVA, having time and position as the two
All statistical analyses were performed using R [20]. Data factors. If one of the omnibus tests for the effect of each
were screened for missing and miscoded values. Missing factor (time, position, or interaction) was significant then we
values were imputed using the mice package [21] and naniar tested the contrast appropriate for effect that was significant.
package [22]. Imputation was conducted by creating a Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, corrections for
prediction equation for each variable based on the inter multiple testing were made with the false-discovery-rate
correlations with all other variables. Variables with at least (FDR) adjustment [23].
r = .1 (Pearson’s correlation) were included in the prediction
equation. The remaining steps followed the default settings 3. Results
in mice to perform imputation by chained equations. One
complete dataset was created based on the imputation. The summary statistics of all variables in this analysis are
The repeated measures ANOVA assumptions (normality reported in Table 2. Means and standard deviations of all
of residuals and sphericity) were checked for each outcome. outcomes are reported across all 10 weeks.
Normality of the residuals was checked using Shapiro-Wilks
3.1. Results of One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA
test of normality and qq-plots. The assumption of sphericity
was checked using Mauchly’s test. When sphericity was The results of all the one-way repeated measures ANOVA
violated, we used the Huynh-Feldt correction to the degrees are reported in Table 3. We did not find evidence of any
of freedom and conducted the omnibus test of the effect of effect for the effect of time on body weight (F(3.1, 40.3) =
time on the outcome. 2.15, p=.108, η2=.142), average CMJ (F(5.4, 69.6) = 1.50,
Outcomes were analyzed by a one-way repeated measures p=.198, η2=.103), on relative average CMJ (F(4.4, 56.5) =
ANOVA and in case of significance a complex contrast was 1.20, p=.329, η2=.085), on relative PAP (F(4.9, 63.9) = 1.40,
conducted to test the effect of the first four weeks p=.238, η2=.097), nor on scaled CMJ (F(3.5, 44.9) = 1.80,
(pre-season) vs. the effect of the last six weeks (in-season). p=.154, η2=.122). For each of these analyses, we found
Outcomes were analyzed by a series of two-way repeated evidence for the tenability of the assumption of normally
 International Journal of Sports Science 2019, 9(4): 92-99 95

distributed residuals. Some issues may have occurred with PAP. Post-hoc analyses were conducted for PAP and scaled
extreme values, but these cases were not excluded due to PAP. The contrast tested whether the effect of pre-season
these data being collected from a small purposeful sample of training (average effect of weeks 1-4) was equal to the effect
athletes. For these four analyses, all of Mauchly’s test of of in-season training (average effect of weeks 5-10). For
sphericity were significant. The Huynh-Feldt corrections are PAP, we found evidence of a statistically significant
reported in Table 3. difference (Est = 100.23 W, SE = 38.41, p = .009).
The omnibus test of the effect of time was significant for Pre-season scores were higher on average than in-season.
PAP (F(9, 117) = 4.63, p<.001, η2=.263) and scaled PAP The major differences observed were between weeks 3 and
(F(4.8, 62.4) = 2.78, p=.0265, η2=.176). For both tests, we weeks 6-10. A similar trend was found for scaled PAP where
found evidence for the tenability of the normality of pre-season scores were higher on average than in-season
residuals. For PAP, Mauchly's test of sphericity gave scores (Est = 6.43 W ·kg-0.67, SE = 1.90, p < .001). However,
evidence of the tenability of the assumption of sphericity (W after controlling for multiple hypothesis testing, the scaled
= 0.995, p = .469); but, not for scaled PAP (W = 0.0002, p PAP scores did not statistically significantly differ across
< .001) and the Huynh-Feldt correction was used for scaled time (see Table 3, FDR p-value = .287).

Table 2. Summary statistics of all variables at each week

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Body Weight (kg) 71.35 9.41 71.83 9.59 72.60 9.60 72.57 9.95 72.37 10.23
Average CMJ (cm) 40.80 5.57 41.28 6.52 43.17 5.57 42.77 4.47 43.31 5.02
PAP (W) 3729.5 384.3 3829.0 463.4 4085.4 287.4 3927.8 366.3 3946.1 406.1
Average CMJ (cm· kg-1) 0.59 0.12 0.59 0.12 0.58 0.18 0.56 0.12 0.57 0.12
PAP (W· kg-1) 52.69 5.16 51.46 5.60 53.34 5.90 52.88 5.73 52.53 3.85
Scaled CMJ
2.38 0.40 2.36 0.42 2.56 0.71 2.38 0.36 2.43 0.35
(cm · kg-0.67)
Scaled PAP (W · kg-0.67) 213.96 18.30 218.32 23.99 227.02 22.37 218.34 14.02 216.26 13.57
Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Body Weight (kg) 72.49 9.94 72.62 10.38 72.41 10.11 72.77 10.20 72.43 10.41
Average CMJ (cm) 41.19 4.34 40.97 4.99 41.93 4.97 41.71 4.76 41.43 3.53
PAP (W) 3817.7 410.6 3681.8 405.2 3666.2 443.0 3816.1 465.6 3828.1 408.5
Average CMJ (cm· kg ) -1 0.58 0.12 0.55 0.10 0.59 0.12 0.63 0.14 0.56 0.08
PAP (W· kg-1) 51.24 4.07 50.92 3.83 51.36 4.35 52.43 4.80 51.50 2.78
Scaled CMJ (cm · kg-0.67) 2.27 0.38 2.27 0.35 2.38 0.39 2.39 0.41 2.33 0.29
Scaled PAP (W · kg-0.67) 213.31 15.34 211.04 16.12 209.89 13.25 214.91 15.27 212.50 11.17

Note. Sample size is 14 across all weeks. CMJ = Countermovement jump; PAP = Peak average power; Wk = Week; M = Mean;
S = Standard deviation.

Table 3. Summary of One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVAs

Outcome DF Time DF Error F 𝜀 p-valuea η2 FDR p-valueb

Body Weight (kg) 3.1 40.3 2.15 0.33 .108 .142 .287
Average CMJ (cm) 5.4 69.6 1.50 0.59 .198 .103 .381
c
PAP (W) 9 117 4.63 < .001* .263 .003*
Average CMJ (cm·kg-1) 4.4 56.5 1.20 0.48 .320 .085 .427
PAP (W·kg-1) 4.9 63.9 1.40 0.55 .238 .097 .381
Scaled CMJ (cm·kg-0.67) 3.5 44.9 1.80 0.38 .154 .122 .381
-0.67
Scaled PAP (W·kg ) 4.8 62.4 2.78 0.53 .026* .176 .287

Note. The p-value reported is the Huynh-Felt adjusted p-value from the omnibus F-test for the effect of time. ). b FDR
a

P-Value is the false-discovery-rate adjusted p-value which indicates whether the effect of time was significant after
controlling for multiple hypothesis testing. cMauchly’s test was not significant so no correction used. 𝜀 = Huynh-Feldt
correction factor for violation of sphericity, η2 = eta-squared measure of effect size (proportion of variance explained).
CMJ = Countermovement jump; PAP = Peak average power. *p < .05.
96 Zacharias Papadakis et al.: NCAA In-Season Coaching Time Regulations Negate
Strength and Conditioning Gains in Women’s Division-II Basketball Team

3.2. Results of Two-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA For PAP scores, the omnibus tests revealed evidence of
the main effects of time (F(6.03, 72.35) = 4.61, p < .001,
The full results of all the two-way repeated measures
𝜂𝑝2 = .277) and differences between position (F(1,12) = 6.45,
ANOVAs and FDR p-value are reported in Table 4. For each
analysis, we found evidence for the tenability of the p = .026, 𝜂𝑝2 = .349). We did not find evidence of an
assumption of normally distributed of the residuals and same interaction (F(6.03, 72.35) = 0.95, p = .468, 𝜂𝑝2 = .07). We
corrections as the one-way repeated measures ANOVA were tested two post-hoc contrasts. The first was the same as the
applied. All of Mauchly’s test of sphericity were significant. one-way ANOVA and controls for position. The second just
The results of all analyses and the Huynh-Feldt corrections compared the two positions controlling for time. First, we
are reported in Table 4. found evidence for pre-season PAP scores are higher on
We found evidence for an average difference between the average than in-season scores controlling for player position
(Est = 93.22 W, SE = 38.88, p = .033). We also found
weight of players by position (F(1,12) = 7.25, p = .020, 𝜂𝑝2
evidence for between position differences, where forwards
= .377), but not evidence for an effect of time (F(3.0, 36.1) =
(F) had higher peak power than guards (G) on average
2.10, p = .117,𝜂𝑝2 = .149) nor a time by position interaction controlling for the effect of time (Est = 400.6 W, SE=157.7, p
(F(3.0, 36.1) = 0.73, p = .539, 𝜂𝑝2 = .058). Forwards weighted = .022). However, after controlling for multiple hypothesis
11.6 kg more on average then guards (SE = 4.4, p = .007). testing, the PAP scores only statistically differed across time
However, after controlling for multiple hypothesis testing, (FDR p-value = .011) and not position (FDR p-value = .136).
we did not have enough power to detect the differences in
body weight across time (see Table 4).
Table 4. Summary of two-way repeated measures ANOVA

Outcome DF DF Error F 𝜀 p-valuea 𝜂𝑝2 FDR p-valueb

Body Weight (kg)
Position 1.00 12.00 7.25 .020* .38 .136
Time 3.00 36.10 2.10 0.33 .117 .15 .410
Time × Position 3.00 36.10 0.74 0.33 .539 .06 .628
Average CMJ (cm)
Position 1.00 12.00 0.06 .817 .01 .817
Time 5.34 64.02 1.51 0.59 .196 .11 .413
Time × Position 5.34 64.02 1.10 0.59 .370 .08 .519
PAP (W)
Position 1.00 12.00 6.44 .026* .35 .136
Time 6.03 72.35 4.61 0.67 .001* .28 .011*
Time × Position 6.03 72.35 0.95 0.67 .468 .07 .578
Average CMJ (cm·kg-1)
Position 1.00 12.00 1.41 .258 .11 .417
Time 4.11 49.35 1.17 0.45 .334 .09 .500
Time × Position 4.11 49.35 0.70 0.45 .594 .06 .657
PAP (W·kg-1)
Position 1.00 12.00 0.56 .467 .05 .578
Time 4.65 55.79 1.45 0.51 .223 .11 .417
Time × Position 4.65 55.79 1.53 0.51 .196 .11 .413
-0.67
Scaled CMJ (cm ·kg )
Position 1.00 12.00 2.02 .181 .14 .413
Time 3.77 45.23 1.85 0.41 .139 .13 .413
Time × Position 3.77 45.23 1.37 0.41 .258 .10 .417
-0.67
Scaled PAP (W ·kg )
Position 1.00 12.00 0.06 .809 .01 .817
Time 4.99 59.90 2.98 0.55 .018* .20 .136
Time × Position 4.99 59.90 1.97 0.55 .096 .14 .404

Note. aThe p-value reported is the Huynh-Felt adjusted p-value from the omnibus F-test for the effect of time). b FDR
P-Value is the false-discovery-rate adjusted p-value which indicates whether the effect of was significant after controlling
for multiple hypothesis testing. The same Hunyh-Feldt correction is applied to the degrees of freedom for both within
subjects factors (i.e., time and the interaction) and a correction is not needed for the between subjects only factor (Position).
DF = degrees of freedom, 𝜀 = Huynh-Feldt correction factor for violation of sphericity, 𝜂𝑝2 = partial eta-squared measure
of effect size (proportion of variance explained controlling for other factors). CMJ = Countermovement jump; PAP = Peak
average power. *p < .05.
 International Journal of Sports Science 2019, 9(4): 92-99 97

For scaled PAP scores, the omnibus repeated measures of the pre-season to a maximum of eight hours per week with
ANOVAs did not reveal evidence of an effect of a time by not more than two hours per week spent on skill-related
position interaction (F(4.99, 59.91) = 1.97, p = .196, workouts [6].
𝜂𝑝2 = .141) nor between positions (F(1,12) = 0.06, p = .809, Strength and conditioning coaches are devoting a
𝜂𝑝2 = .005), but we did find evidence of an effect of time considerable amount of time on enhancing their athletes’
(F(4.99, 59.91) = 2.98, p = .018, 𝜂𝑝2 = .199). Therefore, the jumping ability [25]. Hoffman et al. [14] reported that in a 15
post-hoc comparison of interest was the aggregate of weeks weeks of SC program vertical jump height was decreased by
1-4 vs. weeks 5-10. We found evidence for pre-season scaled 9%, while Hunter et al. [26] noted that over 4 years of
PAP scores are higher on average than in-season scores following 42 NCAA players their vertical jump height was
controlling for player position (Est = 5.727(W · kg-0.67), increased by 8%. Eight weeks of pre-season training have
SE = .85, p = .002). However, after controlling for multiple been shown to be enough to increase vertical jump [10].
hypothesis testing, we did not have enough power to detect Athletes participating in this specific study were able to
the differences in scaled PAP scores across time (see improve their jumping ability in only 5 weeks and later, they
Table 4). exhibited a drop in their vertical jump height. By the end of
the week -10, their respective jump heights were close to
4. Discussion heights observed during week-2. For once more, authors
believe that this might have been the side-effect of NCAA
Results of this study indicate that a SC program on regulations and their imposed time restrictions on periodized
lower-limb power performance in women’s collegiate DII SCCs work.
basketball student-athletes during pre-season and in-season Time spent on SC training seems to be a critical factor
is subjected to time devoted to this kind of training. In fact, when lower-body performance is the goal. In a year-round
the effect of NCAA in-season time restrictions of SC training SC program with no plyometrics included and consisted of
on pre-season lower-body power performance in a collegiate four in-season sessions per week and a SC training session
DII women’s basketball team was found to be buffering. every other day during in-season (one day recovery before
Pre-season SC training elicited on average higher power game) did not increase the vertical jump performance [27]. A
scores than in-season. Three hrs/wk for 3 weeks seemed to study of 8 weeks during the pre-season on female basketball
be adequate stimulus to produce an increase in power players DII increased lower-body performance [10]. SC
performance. Continuing a SC program for more than 3 employed a pre-season 4-week program with three sessions
weeks with less than 3 hrs/wk was not enough to maintain per week, which was focused on strength. That program was
the already achieved adaptations. More than 7 weeks and up able to increase lower-body performance, as well. The
to 10 weeks of SC with 2 hrs/wk had no influence on in-season program was longer than the pre-season (i.e., 6
improving lower-limps power performance above baseline weeks) and had less hours spent in the weight-room (i.e., two
week-1 values (Figure 1). in-season, periodized SC sessions lasting 1 hour each). It was
Periodized undulating SC programs for not enough to maintain achieved pre-season gains on
strength-endurance, strength, and power increases and power lower-body performance. Weeks 5-8 were focused on
maintenance are commonly applied during pre-season and general strength, while weeks 9-10 targeted the
in-season lasting for 8-10 weeks [24]. Results from our study strength/power relationship. A study that had a longer
are in agreement with the literature, even though the 3 weeks pre-season SC duration (5 weeks) with three sessions per
duration of the SC program. Even so, participants were able week also failed to show any improvements during in-season.
to increase their average peak power above their baseline In fact, during 10th week of the in-season vertical jump was
values. This may highlight the fact that, in order to see power significantly reduced [14]. This in-season reduction in
improvements in female basketball players in DII, the vertical jump was also observed in our study, which
duration of the periodized SC program can be as little as 3 averaged a decrease of 0.6% in CMJ from pre-season to
weeks only. Of course, such a short program may not be able in-season. Such observation highlights the fact that there
to set the necessary foundations for maintaining the desirable might be an in-season frequency threshold in vertical jump
outcomes during in-season. In fact, in this particular sample were below that whatever gains were achieved during
players’ power dropped significantly after the week-3 and pre-season are hindered.
did not recover even at week-10. This is in contrast with According to the FITT principle [28], parameter that may
documented increases in average power output on jumping have influenced the results of this study may have been the
test on female basketball players during in-season with only type of employed SC program to enhance jumping and
1-2 SC sessions per week [15]. This might have been the power performance. Compared to regular strength training,
side-effect of NCAA regulations that limited the time spent plyometric training involves movements that replicate more
in the gym and weight-room. At the same time, there is a closely the actual basketball movements [29]. This cohort
chance that, if the pre-season SC was longer in duration (e.g., did bodyweight plyometrics during the pre-season for 4
8-10 weeks), the participants might have been able to resist weeks and 3 hours per week, while during in-season they did
the negative effect of the time constrains employed due to not perform any plyometrics other than what they did during
NCAA regulations. But, NCAA strictly defines the duration in-court sessions and focused for two weeks on strength and
98 Zacharias Papadakis et al.: NCAA In-Season Coaching Time Regulations Negate
Strength and Conditioning Gains in Women’s Division-II Basketball Team

power. Such SC design with the concomitant decrease in NCAA regulations may have on their team success. Sport
time spend in the weight-room may explain the decrease in coaches may assume that the high intensity of basketball
both jump and power performance. practices and games alone is sufficient to maintain
Another limiting issue might be the applied stimulus-load lower-body power performance and compensate for the
program to maximize the power output for lower-body reduction in SC practices, but results of this study do not
performance [30]. Are low-intensity loads (<50% of 1RM) support such assumptions.
[31], moderate loads of 50-70% [32], or a mixed model
which variety of loads and exercises are utilized [33] optimal
for power generating capacity? This study sample used 5. Conclusions
complex training methods and such stimuli have been shown
to improve lower-body performance in athletes from various This study indicated that most of the improvements shown
sport disciplines [33]. in pre-season period cannot be maintained in-season, when
Moreover, due to ethical considerations and possible the time of SC regimen is limited to 2 hours per week due to
practical implications (e.g., post-intervention beneficial the imposed NCAA regulations. Therefore, all stakeholders
effects), a control group was not included. So, all athletes (e.g., NCAA, coaches) may need to reconsider the amount of
followed the same pre- and in-season SC team program. in-season time and frequency allocated for strength and
Experimental studies in competitive NCAA sports are very conditioning practices.
difficult to be executed due to withholding potential
beneficial effects. Therefore, neither coaches nor players
would agree on having some members of the team receiving
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
the intervention and the rest to be the control group. It is We would like to thank the Division of Academic Affairs
almost unrealistic to try and locate another team (going and the Department of the Intercollegiate athletics for giving
through the exact same training and competing at the same us access to the student-athletes.
level) to agree to act as either the experimental or the control
group [34].
This study sample was female athletes and, due to
sex-specific characteristics (e.g., hormonal influences from
menstrual cycle), there may be an underlying complexity to REFERENCES
methodological design. Hormonal influence of estrogen [1] Taylor, J., A Tactical Metabolic Training Model for
and progesterone across the menstrual cycle has been shown Collegiate Basketball. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 2004.
to influence physiological responses during exercise, 26(5): p. 22-29.
ultimately affecting sports performance. However, these
[2] Naclerio Ayllón, F., J. Moody, and M. Chapman, Applied
effects have been shown to be highly individual [35], with periodization: a methodological approach. Journal of Human
controversial findings in regards to anaerobic performance Sport and Exercise, 2013. 8(2): p. 350-366.
[36,37].
[3] Haff, G.G. and N.T. Triplett, Essentials of Strength Training
4.1. Practical Applications and Conditioning. 4th ed. 2015, Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Authors recognize the level of difficulty to get granted
[4] Groves, B., R. Gayle, and S. Brunet, BASKETBALL: Strength
access to NCAA programs. The results of this study relate to
training and team success in NCAA Men's Division I
a specific DII women’s basketball team. Therefore, it may be basketball. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 1989. 11(6): p.
possible other DI, DII, or DII teams to be unaffected by the 26-29.
in-season time restriction compared to pre-season in SC
[5] Narazaki, K., et al., Physiological demands of competitive
practices. There are definitely many confounding factors basketball. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2009. 19(3): p. 425-32.
such as SC programs and head coach basketball practices
that this longitudinal descriptive study could not have been [6] Ayers, K., M. Pazmino-Cevallos, and C. Dobose, The
possible to address and may have biased these results. 20-hour rule: Student-athletes time commitment to athletics
and academics. Vahperd Journal, 2012. 33(1): p. 22-27.
Regardless, if the SC field needs to establish its role in the
US collegiate level even more, similar research studies could [7] Alemdaroğlu, U., The relationship between muscle strength,
be beneficial to move the field from anecdotally- to anaerobic performance, agility, sprint ability and vertical
evidence-based practices [38, 39]. This study showed that jump performance in professional basketball players. Journal
of Human Kinetics, 2012. 31: p. 149-158.
in-season NCAA time constraint is at expense of SC
programs’ success pointing the fact that involved [8] Spiteri, T., et al., Physical Determinants of Division 1
stakeholders need to re-evaluate the NCAA regulations. Collegiate Basketball, Women's National Basketball League,
For SCCs and basketball coaches, this study may be useful and Women's National Basketball Association Athletes: With
Reference to Lower-Body Sidedness. J Strength Cond Res,
when developing a periodized SC program focusing on 2019. 33(1): p. 159-166.
strength and power adaptations and how much impact the
 International Journal of Sports Science 2019, 9(4): 92-99 99

[9] Schweigert, D., Normative Values for Common Preseason [25] Ziv, G. and R. Lidor, Vertical jump in female and male
Testing Protocols: NCAA Division II Women's Basketball. basketball players--a review of observational and
Strength & Conditioning Journal, 1996. 18(6): p. 7-10. experimental studies. J Sci Med Sport, 2010. 13(3): p. 332-9.
[10] Marzilli, T.S., The effects of a preseason strength training [26] Hunter, G.R., J. Hilyer, and M.A. Forster, Changes in fitness
program on a division II collegiate women's basketball team. during 4 years of intercollegiate basketball. The Journal of
International Journal of Fitness, 2008. 4(1). Strength & Conditioning Research, 1993. 7(1): p. 26-29.
[11] Chaouachi, A., et al., Lower limb maximal dynamic strength [27] Groves, B.R. and R.C. Gayle, Physiological changes in male
and agility determinants in elite basketball players. J Strength basketball players in year-round strength training. The
Cond Res, 2009. 23(5): p. 1570-7. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 1993. 7(1): p.
30-33.
[12] Dawes, J.J. and T. Spiteri, Relationship between pre-season
testing performance and playing time among NCAA DII [28] American College of Sports Medicine, ACSM's guidelines for
basketball players. Sports and Exercise Medicine, 2016. 2(2). exercise testing and prescription. 2018.
[13] Wen, N., et al., Power Testing in Basketball: Current [29] Markovic, G., Does plyometric training improve vertical
Practice and Future Recommendations. J Strength Cond Res, jump height? A meta-analytical review. British journal of
2018. 32(9): p. 2677-2691. sports medicine, 2007. 41(6): p. 349-355.
[14] Hoffman, J.R., et al., Strength, Speed and Endurance [30] Soriano, M.A., et al., The Optimal Load for Maximal Power
Changes During the Course of a Division I Basketball Season. Production During Lower-Body Resistance Exercises: A
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 1991. 5(3): Meta-Analysis. Sports Med, 2015. 45(8): p. 1191-205.
p. 144-149.
[31] Kirby, T.J., T. Erickson, and J.M. McBride, Model for
[15] Hakkinen, K., Changes in physical fitness profile in female Progression of Strength, Power, and Speed Training.
basketball players during the competitive season including Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2010. 32(5): p. 86-90.
explosive type strength training. J Sports Med Phys Fitness,
1993. 33(1): p. 19-26. [32] McMaster, D.T., et al., A brief review of strength and ballistic
assessment methodologies in sport. Sports Med, 2014. 44(5):
[16] Sayers, S.P., et al., Cross-validation of three jump power p. 603-23.
equations. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1999. 31(4): p. 572-7.
[33] Bauer, P., et al., Combining higher-load and lower-load
[17] Markovic, G. and S. Jaric, Is vertical jump height a body resistance training exercises: A systematic review and
size-independent measure of muscle power? J Sports Sci, meta-analysis of findings from complex training studies. J Sci
2007. 25(12): p. 1355-63. Med Sport, 2019. 22(7): p. 838-851.
[18] Hoare, D.G., Predicting success in junior elite basketball [34] Shalfawi, S.A.I., Statistical Use in Applied Sport Research.
players--the contribution of anthropometic and physiological Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2016. 38(5): p. 88-91.
attributes. J Sci Med Sport, 2000. 3(4): p. 391-405.
[35] Sims, S.T. and A.K. Heather, Myths and Methodologies:
[19] Whitmer, T.D., et al., Accuracy of a vertical jump contact mat Reducing scientific design ambiguity in studies comparing
for determining jump height and flight time. J Strength Cond sexes and/or menstrual cycle phases. Exp Physiol, 2018.
Res, 2015. 29(4): p. 877-81. 103(10): p. 1309-1317.
[20] Team, R.C., R: A language and environment for statistical [36] Julian, R., et al., The effects of menstrual cycle phase on
computing. 2013. physical performance in female soccer players. PLoS One,
2017. 12(3): p. e0173951.
[21] Buuren, S.v. and K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, mice:
Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of [37] Arazi, H., S. Nasiri, and E. Eghbali, Is there a difference
Statistical Software, 2010: p. 1-68. toward strength, muscular endurance, anaerobic power and
hormonal changes between the three phase of the menstrual
[22] Tierney, N.J. and D.H. Cook, Expanding tidy data principles cycle of active girls? Apunts. Medicina de l'Esport, 2019.
to facilitate missing data exploration, visualization and 54(202): p. 65-72.
assessment of imputations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02264,
2018. [38] Stamatis, A., E.L. Robinson, and G.B. Morgan, Mental
Toughness in Collegiate Strength and Conditioning: Widely
[23] Benjamini, Y. and Y. Hochberg, Controlling the false Used, Widely Misunderstood. International Research in
discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple Higher Education, 2018. 3(35-50): p. 10.
testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B
(Methodological), 1995. 57(1): p. 289-300. [39] Stamatis, A. and Z. Papadakis, What a Difference a
Mentally-Toughening Off-Season Makes: A Case of NCAA DI
[24] Turner, A., The Science and Practice of Periodization: A Rowers. International Journal of Sports Science, 2018. 8(5): p.
Brief Review. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2011. 33(1): 152-157.
p. 34-46.