Strength Coach Reporting Structure
Who do I report to?
Strength and conditioning coaches in college athletics commonly report directly to head coaches. That model is increasingly recognized as a risk to student athlete safety, professional autonomy, and institutional accountability. Today, national best-practice guidance endorsed by the NCAA is clear: strength and conditioning professionals should report through a health and performance line, not directly to sport coaches.
“In the aftermath of offensive lineman Jordan McNair’s 2018 heatstroke death following a Maryland football workout—and the university’s public admission of ‘legal and moral responsibility’ for failures in his care—institutions have been forced to confront how culture, supervision, and reporting lines can directly impact safety.” (1)
At its core, the NCAA recommendation is about aligning authority with responsibility. Strength and conditioning coaches are charged with managing training loads, return-to-play progression, and year-round physical development. I have been in meetings and hiring process where the coach on the committee stated their goal of the strength coach was to “make my players tougher” When the reporting line runs through the same coach whose primary metric is competitive success, it becomes far more difficult to maintain an objective balance between performance and safety.
Current Interassociation recommendations on best practices for strength and conditioning spell out two key principles.
*First, strength coaches must have autonomy to practice their craft without undue influence from sport coaches or others who are not qualified strength and conditioning professionals.
*Second, the strength and conditioning department should report to a director-level leader who has the authority—and the independence—to provide meaningful supervision and oversight in the interest of student-athlete safety and wellness.
From a practical standpoint, this does not eliminate collaboration between strength coaches and head coaches. In fact, healthy collaboration is essential. Functional, “dotted line” relationships that support communication about practice plans, competitive schedules, and performance goals remain important. Process improvement is where hiring, firing, evaluation, and day-to-day supervision live. Those responsibilities should sit with leaders whose primary lens is health, safety, and evidence-based performance, not wins and losses.
There are additional advantages to this structure. It protects strength coaches professionally by reducing pressure to design or administer programs that may conflict with best practice simply to meet competitive demands. For institutions, aligning with this model is not just about compliance; it is about demonstrating to athletes and families that health, safety, and ethics matter.
