From time to time I will scan through blogs of people whom are “Tri-coaches”. Now, I am not a coach but I feel I have a decent understanding of the amount of planning it takes to improve athletes and keep them healthy. I really am not understanding how coaches can effectively train and respond to athletes when there athlete roster is 80 people long. I’m not trying to call anyone out here but that seems like a ton of work. Can you coach that many people well?
Copy and Paste! So easy.
I don’t think an online coach would have any problem with 80 athletes if they are working 40 to 60 hours a week.
After you get people set up all you really have to do is monitor what they are doing and make changes to your overall development plan for them if you don’t see progression.
I’m would think that each good coach knows how people should respond to training. If they don’t then there is a problem that requires more analysis.
jaretj
80 athletes at even 60 hours is 45 min/athlete/week. I’m pretty low maintenance (although DD may say different), but that seems very unrealistic. I’m sure he puts more thought into my schedules than that, and then there are e-mails/texts/sometimes calls. Then there is looking at data files (when I send them…). Then there is staying up on the latest studies and training philosophies.
I’m guessing there are some athletes out there that need 2-3 hours of one-on-one talking each week. There’s a local newbie where every conversation about something small turns into 60-90 minutes. He’s a great guy, but it can be a major time killer.
I think if a full-time coach has more than 25 clients, they are overbooked and can’t give an athlete enough focus.
You have a coach.
Those 80 athletes have a program builder.
There is a HUGE difference
A teacher can not effectively do their job if they have 40 students in their classroom. I believe that if you are a bad ass coach, you can not do it for a living, unless you find 7 or 8 people to pay $1000+/month.
It is impossible to feel the pulse of dozens of athletes at the same time.
Same goes for triathlon: If you want to maintain your elite running after you embark on being a triathlete, it won’t happen.
Taking on 2 additional sports will do the same for an athlete as a coach who takes on more and more athletes. Dilution.
I don’t make a living as a coach, but the 2 athletes whom I have coached this year, have not left a stone unturned. My limit is 5 athletes. Feel free to inquire within!
PT
you forgot about working with sponsors, setting up camps, looking through race schedules, etc. i bet DD spends half his day on that kind of “admin” stuff. not to mention, helping with bike positions, gear, etc.
any “coach” with 80 athletes is probably just punching crap into training peaks or maybe Apollo if they’re smart…
Admin stuff is the bane of my existence. I “luv it”.
I don’t think an online coach would have any problem with 80 athletes if they are working 40 to 60 hours a week.
After you get people set up all you really have to do is monitor what they are doing and make changes to your overall development plan for them if you don’t see progression.
Hahaha you make me laugh at your naivety.
I think I spend 80% of my day on “admin” stuff so consider yourself lucky!
As a coach this kind of thing always interests me as well. But, just like athletes there are different kinds of coaches. Those looking to gain as much $$$ as possible, and those looking to really specialize at the elite level.
Not saying any of those are better than the other, it simply all comes down to the coaches philosophy and what they are looking to get out of their career.
As for coaching 80 people…that would depend on if the coach is getting personalized or writing cookie cutter plans… Again, Coaching philosophy. Not something that would appear to be easy though.
I doubt they’re program builders as template copiers.
Yeah that’s what I was getting at. I think anyone can simply build a program. It takes coaching to digest the workouts, interact with the athletes to then adjust when see fit. It wouldn’t shock me if this coach sets up workouts in probably 2-3 weeks at a time. Yawn, that’s too easy, but as you say, hey if it works for some coaches, go for it.
heh
x2
.
80 athletes at even 60 hours is 45 min/athlete/week. I’m pretty low maintenance (although DD may say different), but that seems very unrealistic. I’m sure he puts more thought into my schedules than that, and then there are e-mails/texts/sometimes calls. Then there is looking at data files (when I send them…). Then there is staying up on the latest studies and training philosophies.
I’m guessing there are some athletes out there that need 2-3 hours of one-on-one talking each week. There’s a local newbie where every conversation about something small turns into 60-90 minutes. He’s a great guy, but it can be a major time killer.
I think if a full-time coach has more than 25 clients, they are overbooked and can’t give an athlete enough focus.
I’d say you nailed it. There is also a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that revolve around future projects, camps, race support etc.
Anyone who has 80 people they are just doing some serious cut and pasting. There is no way they are doing any real coaching or they have 4 people helping them.
I’m completely open to any info you would like to share, but if you don’t, I’d understand.
I don’t think it’s been discussed here before and since I’m not a coach, it appears that I am being naive.
I’ve helped a handful of different friends (never more than one at a time) with triathlon or marathon training. Between dragging feedback out of them, getting schedule availability, writing training plan for the week looking forward and backward, 1 is moreeeee than enough for me.
For a coach that is worth paying money, ~ 25 would be probably a very busy schedule.
Being able to talk to 80 athletes to determine when the changes are needed would be an undertaking. So this idea that it’s just build a plan, change it when it looks appropriate, it’s not that easy. ETA: No it can be easy, but just don’t pretend like you are going to be able to get the most out of your athlete. A “coach” certainly can essentially fill an entire year with a stock training plan with build weeks, taper weeks, etc., and be fairly certain the athlete will do well. But doing well isn’t what I’m in the business for (some coaches want the $$, some what the status, some want to build champions), I’m in the business to getting the most out of my athletes. You cant do that with very little communication.
The part about changing it is where the athlete and coach dissect the workouts, talk about what is actually happening from athletes pov, and then figure out a plan.
It’s not as easy as just reading a number from an file and adjusting. What level of stress is he under going, what’s his work schedule like, did he break up with his gf and just had a shit 4 workouts. That’s all more than just looking at a garmin file.
Being able to talk to 80 athletes to determine when the changes are needed would be an undertaking. So this idea that it’s just build a plan, change it when it looks appropriate, it’s not that easy.
The part about changing it is where the athlete and coach dissect the workouts, talk about what is actually happening from athletes pov, and then figure out a plan.
It’s not as easy as just reading a number from an file and adjusting. What level of stress is he under going, what’s his work schedule like, did he break up with his gf and just had a shit 4 workouts. That’s all more than just looking at a garmin file.
Exactly the same thoughts I share. The reason a coach can’t work effectively with shear volume is because as bad as some people may want this… it isn’t all about the science.
Coaching is an art and it takes time for a piece of art to turn into a masterpiece… By having such a high number of athletes you are essentially lowering the value of your art (performance) by diluting your time/expertise.
Another good reminder why it isn’t all about the numbers… but rather how you re-act and constantly evaluate athlete’s perspective of the efforts regarding those #'s… etc etc etc.
check my edited version, made my point even more valid.