Latest Articles

Troy Palmer2025-10-31T13:04:38-05:00

The New Era of College Athletics Has Gone a Bridge Too Far

Troy Palmer2025-10-31T13:04:38-05:00July 7th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, Research, Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies|

ABSTRACT 

The NCAA has always had a firm stance that to survive, it must keep its amateurism status. The NCAA had rules in place that required colleges and universities to recruit student-athletes to play for them.  It could only offer them compensation through free tuition, textbooks, room, and board; no direct money could be involved.  Over the past decades, the NCAA has grown in popularity and generated a tremendous amount of revenue. At the same time, society was noticing that the NCAA was taking advantage of the student-athlete through its amateurism rules.  The NCAA found itself constantly in court defending its actions regarding amateurism. After years of litigation, the NCAA settled out of court, resulting in the House Settlement, which created a new era in college athletics. These changes will allow student-athletes to receive financial compensation directly from colleges and universities. This new era will continue to bring a tremendous amount of financial burden to athletic departments’ budgets. This may lead to reductions in non-revenue sports, team roster sizes, and athletic staff.  

KEYWORDS: Revenue sports, non-revenue sports, House Settlement, NCAA, amateurism, revenue sharing, NIL

INTRODUCTION 

In the past, student-athletes were very satisfied with receiving an academic/athletic scholarship from a college or university that included free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. In return, student-athletes would participate in varsity athletics for the college or university.  Today’s philosophy has shifted, emphasizing that student-athletes should be directly compensated financially.  Over the past twenty years, college athletics has witnessed a massive growth in popularity that has resulted in bigger television contracts, sold-out stadiums, increased revenue from corporate sponsorships, and souvenir sales. Student-athletes started to take notice of the popularity of college athletics, financial success, and the abundance of revenue that they were producing for the NCAA, colleges, and universities. They felt they should receive more compensation than just free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. At the forefront of every collegiate student-athlete’s mind in recent years is the question: “should I be getting paid for this?” (Tremps, 2024).

Most college fans, alumni, television announcers, media, and state governments believed the NCAA, colleges, and universities were exploiting the student-athletes. They all believed that student-athletes should receive more financial compensation than just free tuition, textbooks, room, and board. After all, student-athletes were generating all the revenue.

The NCAA became a billion-dollar industry off these young men and women, and they received no monetary compensation in return. Some argued that students were getting a free education out of it, but over time, that seemed to become irrelevant to many college players (Cabibi, 2022).

Discussion

NCAA’s History with Amateurism

When the NCAA was formed in the early 20^th century, its cornerstone belief was built around amateurism and did not revolve at all around pay-to-play. Colleges and universities that were NCAA members in any division of athletics were not allowed to financially pay student-athletes directly. During its formation in 1906, the NCAA highlighted amateurism, or unpaid participation, as a core aspect of its student-athletes (Hart, 2024).  NCAA athletes playing for free has always been a feature of the product (Lombardi, 2024).

The only type of financial support that the NCAA would allow colleges or universities to offer student-athletes was free tuition, textbooks, and room and board. The trend of not paying student-athletes financially was accepted by fans, alumni, and media. It was considered an honor and a privilege of amateurism. Many fans felt that the student-athletes were playing for the pride of the college or university and the love of the game. For many fans, amateurism was an endearing aspect, suggesting that young athletes are playing for pride, the love of the game, and the honor of their institution (Lombardi, 2024).

Over the past few decades, societal thoughts have shifted around feelings of amateurism in college athletics, and now think that student-athletes should be financially compensated. The NCAA has held a firm stance on the importance of keeping the amateurism status in college athletics. If they were to allow student-athletes to be financially paid directly, other than through free tuition, textbooks, room, and board, it would significantly hurt the student-athletes’ amateur status. The NCAA prohibited student-athletes from being paid in the past to protect their “amateurism” (McCool, 2023).

With the philosophy changing about financially paying student-athletes, the NCAA found itself in the crosshairs with the media, fans, athletes, and state governments demanding that the NCAA has to do more than just allow colleges and universities to offer student-athletes free tuition, textbooks, room, and board.  They were pressuring the NCAA to eliminate its ancient rules on amateurism and allow student-athletes to be financially compensated by colleges and universities.

However, the NCAA failed to act on eliminating amateurism and stuck to its core belief about the importance of amateurism. Unfortunately, failing to act on this issue resulted in numerous lawsuits against the NCAA. Numerous lawsuits have challenged the amateur aspect of NCAA competitions (Hart, 2024).

Pressure from the media, sports broadcasters, and fans to allow student-athletes to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness kept growing rapidly. Unfortunately, the NCAA continued to ignore the pressure to change bylaws that would allow student-athletes to do this. The failure to change its stance on this issue resulted in new state legislation.

The California State Legislature was the first to propose a bill to allow student-athletes to accept endorsement money for the use of their name, image, or likeness and not be punished by California universities. The state legislature passed this bill, and in 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the first bill to allow student-athletes to accept endorsement money. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill in September 2019 stating that, starting in 2023, universities in the state couldn’t punish athletes for accepting endorsement money while in college (Moore, 2022).

The passage of California’s legislation created pressure on other states to do the same.  Passing legislation to allow student-athletes to receive compensation for their endorsement deals concerning name, image, and likeness.

NCAA’s Litigation Battles

In 2014, the NCAA found itself in litigation with NCAA v. Alston. The lawsuit brought against the NCAA was that they were violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by not allowing student-athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in July 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alston. In July 2021, the Supreme Court’s ruling on NCAA v. Alston allowed college athletes to receive money based on their Name, Image, and Likeness (Munn, 2023).

The Alston ruling was a tremendous blow to the NCAA’s stance on amateurism, forcing them to adopt new bylaws that would allow student-athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness. This was a complete turnaround from student-athletes being punished for receiving financial assistance.  Members of the NCAA’s Board of Directors decided Wednesday to hop on this NIL train instead of getting crushed while trying to stand in front of it (Moore, 2022).

Litigation cases against the NCAA did not slow down after the Alston ruling. Instead, the lawsuits became bigger with more at stake financially for the NCAA, colleges, and universities. In 2020, House v. NCAA. Grant House, a student athlete who was a swimmer from Arizona State, and Sedona Prince, who was a women’s basketball player, and two other suits that were filed by college athletes. All three lawsuits against the NCAA were combined into one. A 2020 lawsuit by Arizona State swimmer Grant House and women’s college basketball player Sedona Prince, along with two separate suits by other college athletes, which were combined into one case (Jones, 2025).

The House lawsuit was based on the NCAA’s alleged violation of antitrust laws. The bylaws set by the NCAA prohibited the opportunity for student athletes to benefit financially from their Name, Image, and Likeness.  Violated antitrust law by collectively agreeing to not provide benefits and compensation to student-athletes and denying student-athletes the opportunity to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness (Jones, 2025).

The loss of previous antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA led to the realization that the current NCAA bylaws, allowing student-athletes only to receive free tuition, textbooks, room, and board, could no longer exist. They recognized there was no chance of winning the case and decided to settle out of court. On June 6^th, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilkens approved the House settlement. The settlement would now allow colleges and universities to directly pay student-athletes for their participation in college athletics. On June 6, 2025, the Northern District of California in House v. NCAA approved a landmark settlement deal allowing colleges and universities to pay their students directly for their participation in college athletics (Cernea & Pennesi, 2025). 

The House settlement also eliminated three additional antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA, which was accused of not allowing student-athletes to profit off their Name, Image, and Likeness. The House v. NCAA settlement ends three separate federal antitrust lawsuits, all of which had claimed the NCAA was illegally limiting the earning power of college athletes (Murphy, D., 2025). The House settlement agreement also included continuation of the NIL along with back pay, roster limits, and revenue-sharing, which started July 1, 2025.

Financial Fallout from House Settlement

The most significant part of the House Settlement was the revenue-sharing agreement that required all Power Five Conferences to participate in. The agreement was put into place to allow student-athletes to be paid directly from colleges or universities. All other Division I Universities were not required to participate in the agreement, but each college or university could choose to either opt in or opt out. Schools are now free to begin paying their athletes directly, marking the dawn of a new era in college sports (Murphy, D., 2025). 

The agreement now allows athletic departments to distribute directly to the sports programs of their choosing about a fourth of their annual revenue, roughly $20.5 million, this academic year. The annual percentage of revenue-sharing will increase each academic year after that. The athletic department’s revenue comes from ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, onsite advertising, concessions, auctions, donations, and, most importantly, media rights. Schools may distribute up to 22% of their revenue from ticket sales, sponsorship revenue, and media rights (Cernea, 2025). Schools will be allotted $20.5 million of revenue per school (Cernea, 2025).

Before the House settlement, colleges and universities’ athletic departments relied on a variety of revenue-generating streams, including ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, and, most importantly, media rights to finance their athletic programs. The implementation of revenue-sharing will create tremendous financial challenges for presidents and athletic directors to keep their athletic programs profitable.

Not all Division I athletic sports offered at colleges and universities are profitable at all. However, there are some sports that either break even or generate a profit: these include men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and football. Even more profitable programs are questioning how they will come up with the money. The Associated Press quoted Alabama Athletic Director Greg Byrne, who told Congress “Those are resources and revenues that don’t exist” (Jones, 2025).

Most colleges and universities’ athletic departments’ budgets at the Division I level across the country will either end in a deficit or break even every year; very few colleges or universities’ athletic departments make a profit. According to financial filings, Alabama reported a $28 million operating deficit during the last fiscal year (Peterson, 2025).  All but a handful of Division I athletic departments operate as revenue-neutral (Schnable, 2025). 

Each year, Division I conferences receive revenue distribution from the NCAA, which helps athletic departments fund all their sports. Because of the House settlement, along with the massive legal issues that the NCAA has gone through in the past few years. The NCAA was forced to distribute less money to all Division I conferences. It’s also expected to reduce the annual distributions all D-I conferences receive, as the NCAA covers damages (Christovich, 2025).

 To survive the new era of college athletics and be competitive in athletics, presidents and athletic directors will have to redistribute monetary resources from non-revenue sports to their three revenue-generating sports. We have one team that makes a healthy profit in football. We have one that turns a profit in men’s basketball.  We have 19 that don’t,” Byrne said (Peterson, 2025).

Texas Tech Red Raiders athletic director made a clear message to the public that the new revenue-sharing model would concentrate almost all revenue-generating sports, which are football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball. Red Raiders will allocate $15.1 million to its football roster (74%), $3.6 million to men’s basketball (17.5%), $410,000 to women’s basketball (2%) (Dellenger, 2025). 

A big challenge facing presidents and athletic directors is justifying non-revenue sports and why they should keep them. An argument can be made that non-revenue sports simply do not generate enough revenue to pay their bills. Athletic departments are under tremendous pressure to make a profit or at least break even every year. It gets harder to pay for sports that lose money, which is everything that’s not football or basketball (Talty, 2025).

 Five years ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit college athletics, it decreased many revenue streams that colleges and universities’ athletic departments relied on.  The pandemic forced presidents and athletic directors to find creative ways to trim their athletic budgets. They eliminated some non-revenue sports and laid off athletic support staff to balance their athletic budgets. To this day, some colleges and universities’ athletic departments still have not fully recovered financially from the pandemic.

 No one would have ever thought that college and university athletic departments would have to do the same thing again. Because of the House settlement, athletic directors and presidents will continue to look and see where cuts can be made to fund the new era of college athletics. Just as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic, they will be forced once again to eliminate some athletic support staff and some non-revenue sports.  “I didn’t think another year would be as tough as COVID [in 2020], but this year has done that,” Yurachek said (Murphy, T, 2025).

Restructuring of Athletics Programs

With the new era of college athletics now in place, athletic directors and presidents will be forced to devote more money to the three revenue-generated sports, which could inflict damage on non-revenue sports budgets. Some non-revenue sports, such as cross country, volleyball, tennis, wrestling, track and field, could either be eliminated or have their roster size reduced. Athletic budgets no longer have enough money to support all the non-revenue sports that generate zero revenue for the athletic departments.   As more NIL money is dedicated to football over all other sports on campus, many teams are at risk to be disbanded when there is no money to support their program (Stankovich, 2025).  The doomsday option is eliminating sports altogether, which some schools are already doing with sports like tennis that neither bring in revenue nor television exposure (Talty, 2025). 

A big concern about athletic departments cutting non-revenue sports is the fact that they produced many of our current or future Olympic athletes. If this does happen, many of our future Olympic athletes could be in jeopardy. Schools have outright used the House v. NCAA settlement as justification to cut Olympic sports programs (Christovich, 2025).  There are deep concerns about the potential impact on sports that feed the U.S. Olympic teams (Carey, 2025).

To help reduce financial increases, athletic departments are facing now and in the future. The NCAA has decided to move away from the standard rules of scholarship limits. Now they will impose roster sizes instead for all Division I competing sports. Unfortunately, by the NCAA implementing these new rules on roster sizes, it could effectively eliminate walk-ons. Roster limitations is expected to leave walk-ons, partial scholarship earners, nonrevenue sport athletes and high school recruits at risk (Carey, 2025).

One of the biggest revenue generators for athletic departments is NIL collectives. These collectives are organizations separate from colleges or universities’ athletic departments that generate revenue to help pay for the students’ athletic performance. Unfortunately, most collectives’ money is usually designated for the revenue-producing sports. Collectives generally pay for the athlete’s performance (Hart, 2024). NIL collectives generate revenue from fundraisers, local or national businesses, donations from boosters, alumni, and fans. Collectives are organizations that collect funds from businesses and boosters to facilitate NIL deals for athletes (Hart, 2024).

Financial Cost to Student Body and Fans

To generate more revenue for athletic departments, state legislators have gotten involved in paying student-athletes.  Legislation has been passed that will allow institutional funds from colleges or universities to be given to athletic departments to help pay student-athletes. In Missouri, a state law has existed for more than a year permitting the school’s collective to receive institutional funds for distribution to athletes (Dellenger, 2024).  Some colleges or universities either have or are in the process of raising student fees to help athletic departments pay their student-athletes. South Carolina announced a new annual $300 athletics auxiliary fee (Rumsey, 2025). 

With the implementation of revenue sharing and the NIL athletic departments are now being forced to find creative ways to generate new revenue streams. The University of Tennessee’s athletic department has found an additional revenue source in its ticket sales. They now charge each ticket purchased a 10% talent fee to generate more revenue to pay their student-athletes.  Tennessee fans for all sports will be charged a 10% “talent fee” on tickets to help pay athletes as part of the new revenue-sharing plan set to begin in 2025 (Low, 2024). During the Football bowl season, the NCAA has allowed bowl sponsorship patches to be placed on football jerseys. Now conferences and or individual schools are seeking approval from the NCAA to allow advertisement on their game day jerseys to generate additional revenue for the athletic departments. The NCAA’s expected and eventual approval of commercial jersey patches looms large (Dellenger, 2025).

CONCLUSIONS

Athletic department budgets had already been strained from the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a heavy financial toll on many college and university athletic budgets. The House Settlement created additional expenses for athletic departments’ budgets. Presidents and athletic directors know that to be competitive, they must allocate all the necessary resources that they have to their revenue-generating sports to survive financially.

The settlement has caused catastrophic destruction to college athletics. The settlement could seriously damage our U.S. Olympic stronghold; it will eliminate the walk-on dreams and take away the chance for many student-athletes’ opportunities to play college athletics. The settlement rewards only a minority of student-athletes, not the majority. It has created a new era of college athletics that is hurtful and not financially sustainable long term. Lastly, this settlement has created a new era of college athletics that has truly gone a bridge too far.

Troy Palmer2025-12-12T09:51:04-06:00

A Longitudinal Cross-Sectional Analysis of Physical Fitness and Motor Competency for Intermediate School Students

Troy Palmer2025-12-12T09:51:04-06:00July 1st, 2026|General, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Health & Fitness, Sports Studies|

ABSTRACT 

Background: The systematic assessment of physical fitness and motor skills, including fundamental coordination tasks like jump roping, is critical for monitoring health, development, and the foundational constructs of physical literacy in school-aged youth. Objective: This study aimed to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of fitness data across eight grade cohorts (Pre-K to Grade 8) to identify developmental and gender-related trends, with a specific focus on the diagnostic value of a 30-second jump rope test as a measure of coordination. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on anonymized fitness test records from 146 students. Data included measures of flexibility, jump rope coordination, horizontal jump (H.J.), vertical jump (V.J.), 30-meter sprint, medicine ball throw (MB6), weight, and height. Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD), independent samples t-tests, and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests were used to analyze gender and grade-level differences. Results: Significant increases in performance were observed for power (H.J., V.J., MB6) and speed (30m) from early to later grades. Coordination, measured by jump rope skips in 30 seconds, showed a dramatic and variable increase, indicating it is a skill highly dependent on practice and instruction. Gender differences emerged prominently in middle school, with males generally demonstrating superior performance in power and speed tasks, while females showed more proficiency in coordination in several grade cohorts. Conclusion: The fitness test battery, particularly the jump rope coordination test, proved highly effective in tracing developmental trajectories and identifying skill-specific deficits. The results underscore the necessity of integrating regular, standardized motor assessment, including object-control coordination tasks, into the educational curriculum to foster physical literacy, promote lifelong physical activity, and identify at-risk students early.

Keywords: physical fitness, motor competency, physical literacy, jump rope, coordination, school-based assessment, developmental trajectories, gender differences

INTRODUCTION 

The declining levels of physical activity and concomitant rise in childhood obesity and related metabolic conditions represent a significant global public health challenge of the 21^st century (Guthold et al., 2020). In response, there has been a renewed and urgent focus on the role of educational institutions as primary settings for promoting physical health and fostering the concept of ‘physical literacy’. Physical literacy is holistically defined as motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life (Whitehead, 2019). Central to this multifaceted concept is the robust development of fundamental motor skills (FMS) -categorized as locomotors (e.g., running, jumping) and object-control (e.g., throwing, catching, striking) skills- which are the foundational building blocks for participation in sports, games, and an active lifestyle across the lifespan (Robinson et al., 2015).

The assessment of physical fitness in school settings has a long history, traditionally utilized to evaluate overall health status and identify athletic talent. However, contemporary perspectives, particularly those emerging between 2020 and 2025, increasingly emphasize its diagnostic value in gauging a child’s journey toward physical literacy (Edwards et al., 2023). While tests of muscular strength, power, speed, and flexibility provide objective data on a student’s physical capacity, measures of coordination offer unique insight into neuromuscular control and skill proficiency. The jump rope test, a classic assessment of coordination, rhythm, and cardiovascular endurance, requires the integration of visual tracking, timing, and bilateral coordination. Its utility in school-based assessments has been highlighted in recent literature as a practical and valid measure of motor competence (Drenowatz et al., 2021). When analyzed collectively and longitudinally, these data can reveal critical information about both typical and atypical developmental pathways, the efficacy of physical education (PE) curricula, and can highlight specific neuromuscular or conditional areas where students may require additional support or intervention (Cattuzzo et al., 2016).

Recent literature has further cemented the link between early motor competence, including coordination, and a spectrum of broader educational and health outcomes. Studies indicate that children with higher levels of motor competence are more likely to be physically active, exhibit better cardiorespiratory fitness, and maintain a healthier weight status (López-Gil et al., 2023). Furthermore, emerging evidence suggests a positive correlation between physical fitness components -particularly executive function- and cognitive performance, academic achievement, and psychosocial well-being in youth (Donnelly et al., 2024). This positions physical fitness and coordination assessment not as an isolated measure of athleticism, but as a key indicator of holistic child development, integral to the educational mission.

Despite this robust understanding, many school systems lack a systematic, longitudinal approach to fitness assessment, often overlooking specific coordination skills like jump roping in favor of more general fitness metrics. Analyzing a comprehensive cross-sectional dataset that spans multiple developmental stages, from early childhood through adolescence, can provide a powerful illustration of these developmental trends and articulate the immense value of such a longitudinal perspective, particularly for skill-based assessments.

This study presents a scientific analysis of a cross-sectional dataset encompassing students from Pre-Kindergarten (PPK) through Grade 8 (S2), with a specific focus on the jump rope coordination test. The primary aims are:

1. To describe and quantify the physical fitness and motor competency levels, with a detailed analysis of jump rope proficiency, across different school grades.
2. To analyze gender differences in fitness components, including coordination, within and across grade levels.
3. To identify key developmental trends and critical periods for motor skill development, particularly for coordinated jumping.
4. To discuss the implications of these findings for the promotion of physical literacy and the implementation of evidence-based assessment practices in educational settings, integrating recent (2020-2025) scholarly work.

METHODS 

Research Design and Data Source

This study employed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of existing anonymized physical fitness test records. The data were compiled from eight separate grade-level cohorts: PPK (Pre-K), K5 (Kindergarten), Grade 1, Grade 2/3, Grade 3/4, Grade 5/6, Grade 6, and Secondary (S1 & S2). The combined dataset included records for 146 students at Nm.Wr.Qs.

Participants

The sample consisted of 146 children and adolescents. A breakdown of the sample by grade and gender is presented in Table 1. Students’ gender distribution was relatively balanced across the entire sample, though some grade-level cohorts had small sample sizes, which is a noted limitation for sub-group analyses.

Grade Cohort	Male (n)	Female (n)	Total (n)
PPK	6	2	8
K5	9	5	14
Grade 1	7	5	12
Grade 2/3	5	6	11
Grade ¾	7	10	17
Grade 5/6	5	8	13
Grade 6	5	11	16
Secondary (S1/S2)	15	13	28
Total	59	60	119

Table 1: Sample Size and Gender Distribution by Grade Cohort

 *Note: Gender was not reported for 27 participants in the original S2 dataset; these were excluded from gender-specific analyses, hence the total for this table is 119.*

Measures and Variables

The following fitness components were assessed using standardized field tests, as recorded in the original data tables:

1. Flexibility (Flex.): Measured in centimeters using a sit-and-reach test. Positive values indicate reach beyond the toes.
2. Coordination (Coor.): Number of successful jump rope skips in a 30-second interval.
3. Lower-Body Power (Horizontal Jump – H.J.): Standing broad jump distance measured in centimeters.
4. Lower-Body Power (Vertical Jump – V.J.): Vertical jump height measured in centimeters.
5. Speed (30m): Time to sprint 30 meters, measured in seconds. All times were converted to seconds (e.g., 8″ 36 became 8.36 seconds).
6. Upper-Body Power (MB6 Lb.): Distance thrown for a 6-pound medicine ball, measured in centimeters.
7. Anthropometrics: Body weight (in pounds) and height (in centimeters). These were used to calculate Body Mass Index (BMI).

Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29). Data from the original tables were cleaned and standardized. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for all variables by grade and gender. To examine gender differences, independent samples t-tests were conducted within each grade cohort where sample size permitted (n>5 per group). A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for significant differences in mean performance across grade levels for each fitness variable. Where the ANOVA was significant (p < .05), Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test was applied to identify which specific grade levels differed from one another. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d for t-tests (small: d=0.2, medium: d=0.5, large: d=0.8) and eta-squared (η²) for ANOVA (small: 0.01, medium: 0.06, large: 0.14). The alpha level for statistical significance was set at p < .05.

RESULTS

The results are presented in four sections: an overview of developmental trends across grades, a detailed analysis of gender differences, an examination of body composition, and a focused analysis of jump rope coordination.

Developmental Trends Across Grade Levels

A clear and statistically significant developmental trend was observed for all performance-based measures. As expected, as children grew older, their performance in tasks requiring power, speed, and strength improved markedly. Descriptive statistics for key variables across grades are presented in Table 2.

Grade	n	H.J. (cm) M (SD)	V.J. (cm) M (SD)	30m (s) M (SD)	MB6 (cm) M (SD)	Flex. (cm) M (SD)	Coor. (Jumps) M (SD)
PPK	8	89.4 (8.5)	9.0 (2.1)	8.76 (1.45)	93.8 (18.9)	+5.5 (4.8)	1.0 (1.6)
K5	14	103.9 (13.7)	12.6 (3.5)	7.01 (0.76)	108.6 (18.1)	+5.8 (4.1)	0.2 (0.4)
Gr 1	12	125.8 (15.2)	11.0 (3.1)	6.50 (0.83)	136.8 (16.9)	+4.8 (4.9)	9.3 (7.5)
Gr 2/3	11	124.1 (21.2)	16.7 (4.9)	6.22 (0.95)	166.4 (37.1)	+3.6 (8.6)	16.3 (7.8)
Gr 3/4	17	141.2 (25.8)	17.9 (5.1)	6.28 (0.75)	228.5 (40.8)	–4.4 (8.2)	21.5 (10.2)
Gr 5/6	13	141.2 (22.7)	16.5 (5.3)	6.05 (0.62)	218.1 (38.4)	+2.8 (7.8)	67.2 (48.1)
Gr 6	16	162.8 (16.3)	21.9 (5.1)	5.62 (0.47)	289.7 (65.8)	+1.9 (8.5)	27.6 (11.2)
Secondary	28	181.8 (29.1)	25.9 (8.8)	5.66 (0.84)	372.9 (78.9)	–1.9 (11.3)	30.5 (12.8)

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics (Mean and Standard Deviation) for Key Fitness Variables by Grade Level

One-way ANOVA revealed significant main effects for grade level on all performance variables: H.J. (F(7, 111) = 32.15, p < .001, η² = 0.67), V.J. (F(7, 111) = 21.44, p < .001, η² = 0.58), 30m sprint (F(7, 111) = 16.02, p < .001, η² = 0.51), and MB6 throw (F(7, 111) = 71.89, p < .001, η² = 0.82). Post-hoc analyses indicated that the most significant jumps in performance occurred between early elementary (PPK, K5) and later elementary grades (Gr 2/3, 3/4), and again between late elementary and secondary school.

Figure 1. Mean Horizontal Jump Distance by Grade Level

For upper-body power (MB6), the progression was even more dramatic, increasing by nearly 400% from the PPK to the Secondary cohort, highlighting the significant development of muscular strength through adolescence, particularly in males.

Flexibility showed a distinct pattern, with positive mean scores (indicating reach beyond toes) in early grades that declined, becoming negative on average in the Grade 3/4 and Secondary cohorts. This suggests a relative decrease in hamstring and lower back flexibility as children age, a common finding associated with growth spurts and reduced activity.

The Development of Jump Rope Coordination

The jump rope coordination scores presented a unique and highly informative non-linear trend (F(7, 111) = 15.89, p < .001, η² = 0.50). Performance was minimal in PPK (M=1.0, SD=1.6) and K5 (M=0.2, SD=0.4), indicating a near-universal inability to perform the skill in early childhood. A significant jump occurred in Grade 1 (M=9.3, SD=7.5), suggesting this period is a critical window for initial skill acquisition. Scores then showed a steady, significant increase through Grade 3/4 (M=21.5, SD=10.2).

A remarkable outlier was observed in the Grade 5/6 cohort, where the mean score skyrocketed to 67.2 jumps, albeit with an enormous standard deviation (SD=48.1). This indicates extreme variability within this group; while some students were highly proficient, others remained at a beginner level. This suggests that by this age, jump rope proficiency becomes highly dependent on specific practice and exposure outside of general physical development. Scores then consolidated in Grade 6 (M=27.6, SD=11.2) and Secondary (M=30.5, SD=12.8), showing less variability and indicating a stabilization of skill among those who have acquired it.

Gender Differences in Physical Performance

Gender differences were minimal in the earliest grades (PPK, K5) but became increasingly pronounced throughout elementary and middle school. Detailed comparisons for selected cohorts are presented in Table 3.

Grade & Variable	Males M (SD)	Females M (SD)	p-value	Cohen’s d
Grade 3/4 (n=7 / n=10)
H.J. (cm)	151.4 (33.9)	133.9 (17.1)	0.17	0.66
MB6 (cm)	247.1 (40.1)	215.6 (37.2)	0.10	0.81
Coordination (Jumps)	18.1 (8.2)	23.9 (10.9)	0.23	-0.60
Flexibility (cm)	-11.0 (6.5)	+0.3 (6.9)	0.002	-1.69
Grade 6 (n=5 / n=11)
H.J. (cm)	170.0 (8.9)	159.5 (17.8)	0.25	0.75
MB6 (cm)	290.0 (67.1)	289.5 (68.3)	0.99	0.01
Coordination (Jumps)	31.2 (15.5)	26.5 (9.7)	0.49	0.36
Secondary (n=15 / n=13)
H.J. (cm)	194.7 (26.3)	167.1 (23.8)	0.005	1.11
30m (s)	5.38 (0.72)	5.98 (0.83)	0.04	-0.78
MB6 (cm)	422.7 (71.5)	316.9 (38.7)	<0.001	1.86
Coordination (Jumps)	28.7 (13.1)	32.5 (12.4)	0.42	-0.30

Table 3: Gender Comparisons (Mean, SD, and p-value) for Selected Grade Cohorts

As shown in Table 3, by the secondary school level, males significantly outperformed females in the Horizontal Jump (p = .005, d = 1.11), the 30m Sprint (p = .04, d = -0.78), and the Medicine Ball Throw (p < .001, d = 1.86), representing medium to very large effect sizes. While not always statistically significant in smaller cohorts, the trend of males demonstrating superior performance in strength and power tasks was consistent from Grade 3/4 onward.

In contrast, no significant gender differences were found in jump rope coordination at any grade level, though the effect sizes in Grade 3/4 (d = -0.60) and Secondary (d = -0.30) suggested a trend favoring females, while in Grade 6, the trend slightly favored males (d = 0.36). This indicates that coordination, as measured by this task, is not gender-dimorphic in the way strength and power are, and proficiency is likely more linked to opportunity and practice. Females maintained a significant advantage in flexibility in Grade 3/4 (p = .002, d = -1.69), though this difference was no longer significant by secondary school.

Body Composition Trends

Height and weight increased predictably with age. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated and converted to kg/m² for analysis. Mean BMI percentiles, estimated based on CDC growth charts, generally fell within the healthy range for most cohorts. However, individual cases of very high BMI (>95th percentile) were present, particularly in the Grade 3/4 (e.g., Participant ZMP: BMI ~31) and Grade 6 (e.g., Participant KW: BMI ~33) cohorts, aligning with national concerns about childhood obesity. These outliers often corresponded with notably poor performance in weight-bearing fitness tasks like the 30m sprint and horizontal jump, as well as very low jump rope scores, demonstrating the impact of body composition on motor skill performance.

DISCUSSION

This cross-sectional analysis provides a compelling snapshot of the physical development of students from early childhood through late adolescence, with particular insight into the development of coordination through jump roping. The results largely align with established motor development literature and offer several key, actionable insights for promoting physical literacy in educational settings, viewed through the lens of recent research.

The Jump Rope as a Diagnostic Tool for Physical Literacy

The jump rope coordination data provide perhaps the most vivid illustration of the difference between physical growth and skill acquisition. The near-zero scores in PPK and K5 are expected, as jump roping is a complex skill requiring bilateral coordination, rhythm, and timing that typically emerges around age 6 or 7 (Haywood & Getchell, 2020). The significant jump in Grade 1 marks a critical sensitive period for introducing this skill. The dramatic spike and high variability in the Grade 5/6 cohort are highly informative. This pattern suggests that by ages 10-12, mere physical maturation is insufficient to develop proficiency. Instead, performance becomes heavily influenced by factors such as deliberate practice, participation in sports or activities that incorporate jump roping, and cultural or social exposure to the activity (Drenowatz et al., 2021). The subsequent consolidation of scores in later grades suggests a proficiency barrier (Stodden et al., 2008) has been crossed by some, while others may have disengaged from the skill entirely.

This has direct implications for physical literacy. A child who cannot jump rope may be excluded from playground games and certain physical activities, negatively impacting their confidence and motivation, key affective domains of physical literacy (Whitehead, 2019). Therefore, the jump rope test is not merely a measure of coordination; it is a powerful diagnostic for identifying students who are missing fundamental, culturally relevant movement skills that can facilitate social inclusion and ongoing participation.

Interpreting Broader Developmental Trajectories

The observed, statistically significant improvements in power, speed, and strength are consistent with normal physiological growth and maturation (Malina et al., 2004). The steep improvements in lower-body power (H.J., V.J.) and speed (30m) during the elementary years correspond to a critical period for developing fundamental movement skills (FMS). As Robinson et al. (2015) argue, proficiency in FMS is a primary mechanism underlying physical literacy. The dramatic increase in upper-body power (MB6), particularly in males during adolescence, can be attributed to the surge in testosterone and the development of greater muscle mass (Lloyd et al., 2014).

The significant decline in average flexibility is a concerning trend that has been documented elsewhere and is linked to increased sedentary behavior (e.g., screen time) and a lack of targeted stretching (Schranz et al., 2020). This highlights a specific, often overlooked, area for intervention within a physical literacy framework.

Addressing the Emergent Gender Gap and Skill Equity

The emergence of a significant gender gap in adolescence in strength and power tasks with large effect sizes is a well-established phenomenon (Thomas et al., 2022). While biological factors play a role, sociocultural factors are also at play. Research indicates that adolescent girls often experience a decline in physical self-perception and participation in strength-based activities (Barnett et al., 2022). Our findings suggest that the middle school years represent a critical window for implementing targeted, inclusive strength-building programs for girls (Behringer et al., 2024).

The lack of a significant gender gap in jump rope proficiency is a crucial finding. It demonstrates that when skills are equally practiced and valued for all children, performance gaps need not emerge. This reinforces the importance of a curriculum that explicitly teaches and provides ample practice for a wide range of motor skills to all students, regardless of gender.

CONCLUSION 

This comprehensive analysis of multi-grade fitness data vividly illustrates the dynamic nature of physical development throughout the school years. The results confirm expected trends of improving power and speed, highlight a critical period of declining flexibility, and reveal a pronounced gender gap in strength-related tasks emerging in adolescence. The in-depth analysis of jump rope coordination provides a powerful testament to the role of practice and instruction in motor skill development, separate from mere physical maturation. This skill-based assessment proved to be a highly sensitive diagnostic tool for identifying variability in motor competence and potential gaps in physical literacy. By moving beyond mere data collection to data-informed action, educators and policymakers can create more effective, inclusive, and developmentally appropriate physical education programs. Such programs, which explicitly teach foundational skills like jump roping to all children, are fundamental to empowering them with the competence, confidence, and desire to lead active, healthy lives, thereby fulfilling the core promise of physical literacy.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has several limitations. Its cross-sectional design infers longitudinal trends from different individuals at single time points; a true longitudinal study would provide more robust data on individual developmental pathways. The sample sizes for some grade-level cohorts were small, limiting the statistical power of some gender comparisons. Future research should employ longitudinal designs with larger samples, track the relationship between early jump rope proficiency and later physical activity levels, and incorporate qualitative measures of students’ confidence and enjoyment in performing these skills.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

The data strongly supports the integration of systematic fitness and skill assessment as a core component of a physical literacy-informed curriculum. As Edwards et al. (2023) argue, assessment should not be for grading but for guiding. The results of such tests can:

1. Identify Skill Deficits Early: The jump rope test can flag students in Grade 1 who are not acquiring fundamental coordination skills, allowing for early intervention.
2. Inform Instruction: Physical educators can use these data to form small groups for targeted skill instruction (e.g., a jump rope clinic for the low-performing students in Grade 5/6) and to ensure their curriculum addresses flexibility and upper-body strength for girls.
3. Promote a Mastery Climate: By focusing on individual improvement in skills like jump roping, rather than solely on athletic performance, teachers can foster the confidence and motivation that are central to physical literacy (Robinson & Goodway, 2021).

Troy Palmer2026-06-29T08:43:40-05:00

Super Shoes:  A Quantitative Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Performance Gains

Troy Palmer2026-06-29T08:43:40-05:00June 26th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, General, Olympics, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Marketing|

ABSTRACT 

Purpose:

This paper analyzes the long-term effect of carbon plated running shoe technology (super shoes) on the performance of elite female and male marathoners.

Methods: 

 In order to do this, we collected data on the number of male sub-2:08 and female sub-2:26:50 marathons in years both prior to and after the introduction of such shoes.  Regression models were then constructed to assess the yearly trend in these data both pre and post super shoe introduction (this was done separately for each gender). 

Results:

We found a statistically significant increase in the slope following the introduction of super shoes, with the annual number of sub-2:08 performers increasing by approximately 11.8 more athletes per year for men and 22.2 for women.  Additionally, we compared the change in men’s slope to the change in women’s slope, finding that women’s times responded significantly more to the introduction of super shoes than did the men’s times.

Conclusions:

In summary, super shoes not only provide an immediate boost to race day performance, but also appear to have ongoing time improvement effects over time.

Applications in Sport:

This research will allow runners to make informed decisions regarding their use of shoe technology in competition.   These findings suggest that performances in elite marathoning are improving at a faster rate since the introduction of super shoes.  This implies that athletes, coaches, and governing bodies must account for the ongoing effects of shoe technology in training, competition, and qualification standards.

Keywords: Marathon, carbon plated shoes, performance benefits from shoes

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

The marathon race traces its origins back to the legend of Pheidippides.  We owe the standardization of the distance to the royal family at the 1908 London Olympics, who requested the race to pass the palace, and thus at 26 miles and 385 yards, and a tradition of long distance racing was born.

Following the running boom of the early 1970s, marathon running has become increasingly popular at both a recreational and elite level.  Currently, the most competitive marathons are part of the Abbott World Marathon Majors. 

One noteworthy thing about long-distance running is that it requires minimal equipment.  Perhaps the greatest innovation in equipment technology was the introduction of carbon plated shoes by Nike in 2016.  Initially, knowledge of their existence was rather limited, although the three male marathon medalists at the Rio De Janeiro Olympics all wore some prototype of these shoes (5).  These shoes, however, did not become widely available until 2017 and, therefore, we use 2017 as their year of introduction for the purposes of the analyses we conduct in this paper.  Over time, the use of these shoes has grown to encompass recreational runners as well, and they have become increasingly popular for use in training, due to their extensive cushioning. 

Previous work by Bjorkelo et al. (2024) has shown that the use of these shoes has an immediate effect on performance.  In particular, they found an immediate increase in the number of sub-2:08 marathons run per year by male marathoners.  The goal of this paper, however, is to determine what, if any, long-term benefits these shoes offer.  In other words, our goal is to see, if, in addition to the aforementioned immediate benefit, this shoe technology also affects the rate at which the number of sub-2:08 marathons per year is increasing.  We assess the same relationship for the number of women’s marathons run under 2:26:50 each year.  Mathematically, this study models elite marathon performance counts as a piecewise linear time series with a structural break corresponding to the introduction of new shoe technology.  To provide background for these analyses, we now turn to a review of the literature.

A great deal of research into the various factors affecting long distance running performance has been conducted over the years.  Running shoe technology has become an increasingly popular area of research following the introduction of super shoes.  Much of this research has involved the effect of these shoes on running economy (RE).  Morgan et al. (8) define RE as the volume of oxygen that must be consumed (per kg body weight) in order to support a particular running velocity.

While many factors affect RE, the one most relevant to this study is related to running mechanics.  Specifically, this factor involves the force with which an athlete’s foot can hit and depart from the ground (3).  Much of the research into the efficacy of super shoes in reducing marathon times has been lab research related to these ground forces.  For example, Herbert-Losier and Pamment (5) found that while the Nike Zoom Streak 6 (a traditional racing shoe) had an energy return of 65.5%, the Nike Vaporfly (a super shoe) returned 87% of the expended mechanical energy.  They found that this increase in energy return results in approximately a 4% increase in RE and a 2% increase in performance.  Similarly, Hunter et al. (7) found runners’ oxygen consumption to be between 1.9% and 2.8% lower in carbon plated shoes, as opposed to traditional racing shoes.

The aforementioned laboratory gains in RE can, naturally, vary quite a bit from one individual to another.  For instance,  Paradisis et al. (9) found that, among recreational runners, the reduction in oxygen consumption attributable to carbon plated racing shoes can be up to 3.8%.  It is also important to note that most of the studies on RE focused on male subjects or pooled male and female subjects (1).  As we will shortly see, one of the analyses performed in this study attempts to discern any differences in separately averaged male and female response to super shoes.

Although much of the research into carbon plated shoe technology has been conducted in the laboratory, some work has been done outside of the laboratory.  In particular, Bjorkelo et al. (2) found that the introduction of super shoes in 2017 was associated with a 91 second decrease in elite male marathoning times.  Additionally, Robbin et al. (11) found that, since the introduction of super shoes, elite male and female marathoning times have improved according to the 3 following criteria:  (1) the arithmetic mean of the medians of the 100 best performances per year was at least 0.3% faster than the reference value, (2) at least 50% of the years in the observation period were faster than the reference value, and (3) two years within the observation period were the fastest years analyzed.  Most notably, they found that arithmetic mean of the medians decreased by 1.45% for the females and by 0.73% for the males.  This corroborates the 1.174% decrease in elite male times found by Bjorkelo et al. (2). 

In this paper, we will take the previous research several steps further.  While the previous research looked at the one-time effect of super shoes on race times (e.g. a 1.45% decrease in marathon times for women and a 0.73% decrease for men) (11), we will address the question:  on a yearly basis, are race times improving more rapidly than they used to for elite male and female marathon runners?  Additionally, we will statistically quantify any differences that exist between this rate of improvement for men versus women.

METHODS 

In order to address the questions posed above, we collected data on the number of male individuals running under 2:08 for the marathon for each year from 1985 through 2024, and similarly, collected data on the number of female individuals running under 2:26:50 for each year from 2002 through 2024 (note that we examine the number of unique individuals under these time standards, not the total number of performances under these standards).  These data are publicly available, and were obtained from the World Athletics database (6). We then conducted several linear regression analyses. Due to the time-series nature of the data, we used Cochrane-Orcutt transformations on all continuous variables, in order to remediate the autocorrelation of the residuals (4).  This transformation transforms the regression variables such that the correlation of model errors over time is dramatically reduced.  After correcting for autocorrelation, no evidence of heteroskedasticity or non-normality of residuals was detected.  Additionally, in order to minimize the multicollinearity in the models, we centered the year about 2017.  Note that all hypotheses are tested at the 0.05 level of significance.

In each of the aforementioned regressions, the dependent variable is either the number of individuals who ran sub-2:08 marathon in a given calendar year (when dealing with men), or the number of individuals who ran sub-2:26:50 marathon times in a given calendar year (when dealing with women).  The times of 2:08 and 2:26:50 were chosen for the following reasons:  (1) they allowed us to find data dating back a few decades, (2) they would still be considered an elite marathon time today, and (3) the data for this particular set of times was readily available.  Further, the choice of 2:08 allows for a nice comparison to work previously done by Bjorkelo et al. (2), and as 2:08 is near the 2024 Olympic standard for men, the Olympic standard for women seemed a compatible complement. That said, we note that there is nothing intrinsically special about the times of 2:08 and 2:26:50.

While we acknowledge that the use of counts of performances below a fixed threshold differs from directly modeling finishing times, this approach offers two advantages. First, it provides a consistent and interpretable measure of performance depth over time, allowing us to assess how many athletes are achieving historically high standards in any given year. Second, threshold-based measures such as ours are less sensitive to extreme outliers (e.g., world records) and instead capture overall changes in competitive field quality.

In each regression, the year (e.g. 2010) is used as an independent variable.  As noted in the introduction, we consider 2017 to be the first year for which super shoes were widely available.

In practical terms, the approach outlined above allows us to compare how quickly elite-level performances were improving before and after the introduction of super shoes. Instead of focusing on individual race times, the model captures changes in the depth of elite performances over time.

RESULTS

We now address the first research question:  has the annual rate of increase of the number of men running under 2:08 changed since the introduction of super shoes?

Men

To clarify the above statement, we assume (and can see from the data) that the number of men running under 2:08 each year has been increasing over time, independent of shoe technology.  This may be attributable to such things as improved nutrition and better training methods.  Our goal is to see if that rate of increase changed in 2017, upon the introduction of super shoes.  In order to do this, we estimate the following equations:

Y = b₁₁ + b₂₁X, where Y = the number of men under 2:08, and X = year (for years 1985-2016)

Y = b₁₂ + b₂₂X, where Y = the number of men under 2:08, and X = year (for years 2017-2024). 

In the first equation above, b₁₁ is the estimate y-intercept and b₂₁is the estimated slope.  Similar notation is used throughout the remainder of this section for the remaining equations.  In practice, b₂₁  is the pre-super shoe slope and b₂₂ is the post-super shoe slope.  b₂₁ tells us, on average, how many sub-2:08 performers were being added per year prior to the introduction of super shoes (presumably due to things like improved nutrition), while  b₂₂ tells us, on average, how many sub-2:08 performers have been added per year after the super shoes were widely available.

The estimated equations are presented below (with standard errors in parentheses below the parameter estimates):

(equation 1a)  Y = -2022.04 + 2.595X

                                                              (0.516)

(equation 1b)  Y = -39725.17 + 14.395X

                                                                 (1.973)

Although it is not our primary topic of interest, we note that each of the slope parameter estimates above are statistically significant, and have p-values < 0.001. 

After estimating both equations (using ordinary least squares regression), we test the following hypothesis:

H₀:  b₂₁ = b₂₂

H₁:  b₂₁ ≠ b₂₂

Note that we use the approach above, as opposed to simply estimating one equation with an interaction term, because our attempts to do so were met with serious multicollinearity issues. 

In order to test the hypothesis above, we utilized a modified Sattherthwaite approach (13) to estimating the degrees of freedom for the corresponding t-test.  We utilize this approach because (1) some of our sample sizes are relatively small and (2) the variance of the parameter estimates we are comparing do not appear to be equal. 

From equations 1a and 1b, we find a test statistic value of T = 5.78.  Using the method of von Davier (13), we find an effective degrees of freedom of 8.23.  This results in a p-value = 0.00042.  Hence, we reject our null hypothesis of no difference between the slopes.  Indeed, it appears that the annual rate of change (slope) in the number of sub-2:08’s  during the super shoe era is significantly greater than the rate of change prior to the introduction of super shoes.

The difference between the slopes above is 11.8.  This means that, upon the introduction of super shoes, the rate of increase in the number of sub-2:08 runners each year increased by 11.8.  In other words, we are now adding nearly 12 more athletes per year to the sub-2:08 ranks than was the case prior to 2017.  In a practical sense, this suggests that elite performance is not just improving, but improving at an accelerating rate since the introduction of super shoes.

Women

Similarly, we now address our second research question:  has the annual rate of increase of the number of women running under 2:26:50 changed since the introduction of super shoes?

  In order to answer this question, we estimate the following equations:

Y = a₁₁ + a₂₁X, where Y = the number of women under 2:26:50, and X = year (for years 2002-2016)

Y = a₁₂ + a₂₂X, where Y = the number of women under 2:26:50, and X = year (for years 2017-2024)

The estimated equations are presented below (with standard errors in parentheses below the parameter estimates):

(equation 2a)  Y = -3780.75 + 3.58X

                                                              (1.127)

(equation 2b)  Y = -55464.92 + 25.79X

                                                                 (3.521)

As with the male marathoners, note that both of the slope parameter estimates above are statistically significant, and have p-values 0.008 and less than 0.001, respectively. 

We now test the following hypothesis for the women:

H₀:  a₂₁ = a₂₂

H₁:  a₂₁ ≠ a₂₂

From equations 2a and 2b, we calculate a test statistic value of T = 6.01.  Using the method of von Davier (13), we find an effective degrees of freedom of 5.87.  This results in a p-value = 0.0018.  Hence, we again reject our null hypothesis of no difference between the slopes.  It appears that, as with the male marathoners, the annual rate of change (slope) in the number of sub-2:26:50’s run by females during the super shoe era is significantly greater than the rate of change prior to the introduction of super shoes.

Finding the difference of the slopes above, we are now seeing a rate of increase in sub-2:26:50 runners that is 22.21 athletes per year more than it was previously.

Comparison of Men and Women

We have just seen that there is convincing statistical evidence to show that the rate of increase of both male and female fast (under 2:08 and 2:26:50, respectively) marathons has increased since the introduction of super shoes.  Our final research question involves determining whether or not these two changes in rate of fast times is different between the genders.  In order to do this, we estimate one regression equation for each gender.  Each of these equations involves the entirety of the years available for that gender.  The dependent variable is unchanged from before.  We now use the 3 following independent variables:  X₁ = year, X₂ is a 0-1 dummy variable which indicates whether or not super shoes were available that year, and the interaction term X₁ X₂.  We can then test to see if there is a difference in the changes of the two genders’ slopes by testing to see if the parameter estimates for the two interaction terms are equal or not.  Specifically, we test:

H₀:  c_4m = c_4f

H₁:  c_4m ≠ c_4f,

 Where the c_i are the coefficients of the two equations’ parameter estimates, and m and f refer to the male and female equations, respectively.  The coefficients in the hypotheses above are taken from equations 3a and 3b below, which represent the two regression equations we estimated:

(equation 3a)  Y = 26.71 +1.008X_1m + 25.94X_2m + 2.73X_1mX_2m

                                                       (0.208)        (8.54)            (2.06)

(equation 3b)  Y = 108.85 +3.194X_1f + 321.71X_2f + 20.27X_1fX_2f

                                                         (0.90)        (48.64)            (3.36)

Recall that Y is the estimated number of athletes under 2:08 or 2:26:50 (elite), and each equation above contains an intercept, an intercept additive “shift” for the super shoe era (X₂), a slope representing the estimated annual increase in number of elite marathons from 1985-2024 (X₁),and an additive increase in slope for the estimated additional number of elite marathons each year after the introduction of super shoes (X₁X₂₎).

From equations 3a and 3b, we used the same techniques as in the first two hypothesis tests, and calculate a test statistic value of T = 4.45 with an effective degrees of freedom of 5.67.  This results in a p-value = 0.0067.  Hence, we reject the null hypothesis and do, indeed, find evidence that the rate of change in the two genders’ slopes is different.  Namely, the women’s slope appears to have changed more than did the men’s slope.  We now discuss the aforementioned results in more detail.

DISCUSSION

The results from the previous section provide several interesting implications for the future of marathoning.  The preceding findings are not only statistically important, but also have applications for coaches and athletes who want to understand how rapidly the competitive standard in elite marathoning is evolving.  To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide statistical evidence that advanced shoe technology is associated not only with immediate performance improvements, but also with an increased rate of elite performance progression over time.

In order to put these new results in context, however, it is important to recall a prior result.  Bjorkelo et al. (2) previously found that the widespread introduction of super shoes in 2017 resulted in an immediate increase in the number of sub-2:08 marathons run per year.  Specifically, they found two things:  (1) the introduction of super shoes was associated with an immediate increase in the number of sub-2:08 marathons by just over 23 per year and (2) after accounting for this shoe effect, there was a trend over time of an additional 2.56 sub-2:08 times per year.  Their data set, however, only included times through 2021.  Combining these results, we can look at number of sub-2:08 times per year as a linear function of time that took a one time jump in 2017. 

Our results extend this past work in a significant way.  Namely, we found that, in addition to this one time jump the number of fast (where, for purposes of this paper, we define fast as under 2:08 for men and under 2:26:50 for women) marathons, the number of fast marathons being added per year has also increased.  In other words, the number of fast marathon times per year can no longer be viewed as a simple linear function.  Rather, the number of fast times per year is a piecewise function of time, with the changepoint occurring in 2017.  At that time, the slope of the function changed.

Regarding the specifics of this change in slope, we find that in 2017, for men, the number of additional  sub-2:08 times per year increased from 2.595 to 14.395.  Similarly, for women, the number of additional sub-2:26:50 times per year increased from 3.58 to 25.79.  There are a few possible reasons for this increase.  One likely reason involves the possibility that training in these highly cushioned shoes allows runners to train at higher volume and/or intensity.  This ability to run hard sessions with less residual fatigue may allow marathoners to improve their times faster than before.  While a thorough discussion of marathon training methods is beyond the scope of this paper, we do mention an example.  First, Ruiz et al. (12) found that carbon plated marathon racing shoes allowed athletes to run faster later in hard track workouts.   Similarly, it would be reasonable to expect that these shoes might allow athletes to recover more quickly following the completion of hard workouts.  If this is true, it would allow marathoners to run more hard workouts during any given time period. 

In addition to the recovery effect noted above, it is possible that there might be a psychological effect influencing the increasing rate of fast marathon times being seen each year.  Pfister (10) found that a super shoe placebo effect might exist.  Specifically, they found that, given 2 structurally identical shoes, runners perceived a reduction in running effort when they were told the shoes were super shoes. 

Related to this is the potential for super shoes to have initiated a “Bannister effect” in marathon running.  The Bannister effect refers to the flood of sub-4:00 miles run in the immediate aftermath of Roger Bannister breaking that long revered barrier in 1954 (14).  It is possible that the physical effects of super shoes resulted in people running faster than before, which, in turn, led to people believing they could run faster than before.  If a 2:08 marathon is no longer seen as especially fast for an elite male marathoner, this belief may result in more elite athletes going after this as a realistic goal, thus increasing the pool of people who may run under 2:08.  It would seem reasonable for all of the aforementioned super shoe effects to hold for both men and women and, indeed, we found statistically significant evidence that the rate of increase in fast marathons did increase for both men and women.

Other possible explanations include that the “slope” and “intercept” considerations are being confounded by the effects of some early adopters and some later adopters. This is less likely for Olympic caliber athletes as those considered here.

Further, it seems that super shoe producers are continuing to innovate. Nike’s original super shoes were named “4%s,” a nod to the purported energy savings.  As time goes by and technologies improve, this 4% number may grow. 

Our next result of interest involves comparing the super shoe effect in men and women.  As seen in our results section, the rate of increase in women’s fast (2:26:50) marathon times was statistically significantly greater than the rate of increase in men’s fast (2:08) times.  This implies that, for some reason, super shoes may have a greater effect on women’s times than on men’s.  Minimal work has been done comparing men’s and women’s responses to super shoes, so the reasons behind the difference we detected are speculative.  One possible reason could be due to potential differences in male and female physiology and/or biomechanics.  A second reason could be related to the possibility that there may simply be more room for improvement in women’s marathoning than in men’s marathoning (perhaps due to later access).

While this study focuses on elite-level performances, the findings may also have implications for non-elite runners. As improvements in shoe technology continue to influence performance at the highest levels, similar results have been found for recreational runners (9). This could affect pacing strategies, training approaches, and goal setting for individuals whose objectives are things like setting personal best times or qualifying for the Boston Marathon.

As can be seen, maintaining one’s competitive status may increasingly depend not only on talent and training, but also on access to and the use of advanced footwear technology.

This research also provides interesting avenues for future research.  First, it would be valuable for more research to be done comparing the effect of carbon plated shoes on males versus females. Research comparing effects in both training, racing, and recovery would be valuable.  Second, a repeat of the study contained herein in several years would be of interest.  In particular, such a study could shed light on whether or not the change in slope we observed is permanent.  Finally, extending the work done in this paper to track races would be most useful.  The technology present in super shoes was, even more recently, introduced to spikes used for track races.  It would be interesting to see how similar the effects of these spikes are to the effects we found in the marathon shoes.

There are some limitations to the research presented here.  First, and most importantly, our sample sizes are relatively small.  This is unavoidable, however, since super shoes have only been widely available for 8 years as of the writing of this paper.  Additionally, we note that the results we found speak to the evolution of marathon racing as a whole, and do not offer predictions as to the effect of shoe technology on any given runner.  Finally, it is certainly possible that factors such as changes in prize structures and advances in training may have contributed to the observed changes over time.  That said, our inclusion of a time variable in each regression should account for incremental changes in performance over time.  By comparing the change in the time variable’s slope upon the introduction of super shoes, we attempt to isolate this major change as best as reasonably possible.

CONCLUSION 

In summary, we have found that the use of carbon plated shoe technology is significantly related to the rate of increase in the number of fast marathoners per year.  In addition to the immediate performance effect of super shoes, the number of additional fast times being added each year has increased significantly for both men and women since the introduction of these shoes in 2017.  In order to remain competitive in this environment, athletes are going to have to take advantage of every possible opportunity offered by equipment technology.  This increase in competitiveness appears to be even greater in women’s marathoning than in men’s marathon racing.  More broadly, these findings highlight how new technologies can alter the trajectory of performance progression in endurance sports.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

The results of this study have important implications for athletes, coaches, and sport governing bodies.  First, the ongoing benefit of super shoe technology provides one important additional reason for competitive runners – both elite and non-elite – to consider the use of super shoes.  As Paradisis et al. (9) showed, the lab effect of super shoes is quite significant, even among recreational competitors.  While elite athletes generally have their shoes paid for by sponsors, recreational athletes must consider the costs and benefits of these shoes.  With most super shoes costing at least $250, it is important to be aware of all of their benefits prior to making a purchasing decision.  For competitive runners, this implies that, despite their cost, not using super shoes may place them at a growing disadvantage as performance standards continue to improve.

Second, as noted earlier, a portion of the ongoing benefit of super shoes appears to be due to their ability to allow runners to perform more frequent high intensity training sessions.  Having empirically verified that this benefit is significant, athletes of all levels may now consider working with their coaches to modify past training regimens, due to the enhanced ability to recover that these shoes provide.  Coaches may therefore consider revisiting traditional recovery assumptions when developing training micro and macrocycles.  For example, coaches may consider modest increases in weekly training volume or intensity, while carefully monitoring recovery, in order to leverage the enhanced recovery capacity offered by super shoe technology.

Finally, there are applications for race directors and governing bodies.  The people in charge of determining qualifying times for events such as the Olympics, Olympic Trials, and Boston Marathon often determine these standards years in advance with a rough idea of the field size they desire.  Since we have now shown, and quantified, that the rate of increase in the number of fast times has increased, it may be useful to consider this information when setting qualifying standards, in order to optimize the number of competitors in a marathon.  Failure to account for these trends may result in the use of qualifying standards that no longer reflect the intended level of selectivity.

Troy Palmer2026-02-12T13:35:16-06:00

BOOK REVIEW: Murphy, J. (2020). Inner Excellence. Train Your Mind For Extraordinary Performance And The Best Possible Life. Academy of Excellence – New York – Rome – Tokyo.

Troy Palmer2026-02-12T13:35:16-06:00June 24th, 2026|Book Reveiws, Contemporary Sports Issues, Leadership, Sports Studies, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|

Inner Excellence, by Jim Murphy, was published in 2020 but entered the broader public conversation several years later. During a nationally televised Wild Card game in January 2025, A.J. Brown of the Philadelphia Eagles was spotted reading the book on the sideline, a moment that drew widespread attention. His postgame praise helped propel the book to the number one spot on Amazon by the following morning.While Brown’s visibility expanded its audience, Murphy’s work ultimately stands on its own as a clear, accessible exploration of the mental habits that separate elite performers and extend beyond sport.

At its core, Inner Excellence challenges the idea that achievement alone creates a meaningful life, instead placing value on growth that begins internally through self-awareness and personal development rather than external validation. Murphy encourages readers to move away from chasing approval or outcomes and toward building a steadier foundation rooted in purpose and perspective. Central to this shift is his caution against ego, which he describes as one of the greatest obstacles people face. In Murphy’s view, excessive self-focus distorts perspective, limits growth, and distracts from long-term development.

That same mindset shapes how Murphy frames the book itself. He invites readers to approach Inner Excellence not as a destination to reach, but as an ongoing process rather than a final achievement. In doing so, he challenges conventional definitions of success, suggesting that exceptional leaders measure it through effort, growth, and a sense of purpose extending beyond oneself. This reframing feels relevant in a culture fixated on contracts, awards, and social media validation. Importantly, Murphy delivers these ideas without an authoritative tone, writing instead as a guide alongside the reader and inviting reflection rather than dictating conclusions. Although many examples draw from athletics and the language of sport, the lessons extend well beyond athletes, translating naturally to everyday life and professional pursuits through references to figures such as Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and J.K. Rowling.

Murphy draws on his background as a former member of the Chicago Cubs to illustrate how closely his sense of identity and self-worth became tied to performance. That dynamic may feel familiar to many readers and raises a natural question about how often personal worth becomes linked to results alone. I recognize that tendency in myself, particularly in the ways confidence and self-perception can become tethered to external outcomes.

Inner Excellence is organized into eleven chapters that explore a broad range of ideas, including performance, emotional control, presence, overcoming mental blocks, maintaining poise under pressure, and leadership. Across these chapters, Murphy also weaves in topics such as the subconscious, visualization, self-awareness, the difference between dreams and goals, and the development of courage. Among them, Chapter 3, “The Greatest Opponents You’ll Ever Face,” stood out most to me. In it, Murphy identifies three internal adversaries that undermine performance and growth: the Critic, the Monkey Mind, and the Trickster. The Critic delivers negative judgments, the Monkey Mind fuels relentless mental noise, and the Trickster fixates on past failures to reinforce self-doubt. What gives the chapter its weight for me is how it reflects my own experience, where progress is often limited less by external obstacles than by the internal narratives I carry.

Murphy brings further clarity to this idea by framing life as a series of choices between two paths: the path of freedom and the path of comfort. One requires risk, growth, and a willingness to confront fear, while the other favors safety and familiarity, often at the cost of long-term development. I am frequently drawn toward the option that offers less resistance, only to recognize how easily comfort can delay growth. In this way, Inner Excellence moves beyond athletic performance and becomes a personal challenge, prompting an honest reckoning with how rarely meaningful progress occurs without deliberate discomfort.

Inner Excellence is not a book meant to be rushed, and for some readers, myself included, it can feel overwhelming if approached too quickly. There is a great deal of material, but readers should not feel pressured to absorb or apply everything at once. Instead, the book benefits from a slower, more intentional pace, with chapters best read in smaller sections and revisited as needed. Murphy’s approach relies on reflection, lived experience, illustrative examples, and quotations rather than formal research or statistical validation, which may not appeal to readers who prefer strictly data-driven frameworks. That said, the book is intended as a practical resource rather than an academic text. Each chapter concludes with clearly defined “Key Points,” along with follow-up questions and activities that encourage application. In this way, Inner Excellence functions less as a book to be read straight through and, for me, more as a personal toolkit, one that invites readers to return to specific chapters and apply the lessons most relevant to their lives. The writing is clear, making the ideas easy to understand and apply in everyday settings.

Murphy draws a parallel between physical and mental training, emphasizing that mental development deserves the same consideration we give physical preparation. Inner Excellence offers not a finish line, but a framework meant to be revisited, applied, and lived over time. It reads less as a prescription for immediate change and more as an invitation to return, reflect, and apply its ideas with patience and intention, making it a book I would strongly recommend and one that at times feels akin to a personal form of therapy.

Troy Palmer2025-10-29T09:49:24-05:00

BOOK REVIEW: Moawad, T. (2022). Getting to Neutral: How to Conquer Negativity and Thrive in a Chaotic World. HarperOne.

Troy Palmer2025-10-29T09:49:24-05:00June 24th, 2026|Book Reveiws, Contemporary Sports Issues, Leadership|

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written while the author was a student. The author has since graduated. The author holds an M.S. Exercise Science degree from West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Trevor Moawad, author of It Takes What It Takes, passed away in September 2021. Yet his influence resonates through the posthumous release of his second book, Getting to Neutral: How to Conquer Negativity and Thrive in a Chaotic World, published in 2022. The book builds on the mindset philosophy of neutral thinking that made Moawad a trusted figure in elite performance circles. In Getting to Neutral, he outlines practical strategies for applying neutral thinking to real-time adversity—reaffirming his core belief that performance begins with a mindset grounded in reality, not emotion. The goal is to break free from the weight of past experiences and focus on what can be controlled in the present to shape the future. As Moawad often said, “The past may be real, but it’s not predictive.”

Moawad’s writing isn’t academic or journalistic—it’s conversational. While that may deter some, it makes his ideas more accessible. The book’s 11 chapters explore different aspects of neutral thinking, and for a clear, non-sports example, Chapter 2—“How to Downshift to Neutral”—delivers. Moawad illustrates the concept through two personal, relatable experiences: his cancer diagnosis and COVID-19. In both cases, the future was uncertain, and he had to stay grounded in the present. It’s easy to be consumed by fear and doubt, but Moawad urges us to focus on what we can control. This doesn’t mean forcing positivity—after all, how can anyone be truly “positive” while facing a terminal illness or global crisis? Instead, he emphasizes staying neutral—accepting what has happened, recognizing what is happening, and asking “What’s the next thing I need to do?”

In Chapter 5, “Behaving Your Way to Success,” Moawad references Navy Admiral William McRaven’s 2014 University of Texas commencement speech, which opens with the simple directive: “Make your bed.” Moawad uses this to introduce a core theme: success isn’t built on big, dramatic moments—it’s built on small, consistent habits. “First you form your habits, then they form you,” he writes, challenging readers to consider whether their behaviors align with their values. If you value health but never prioritize exercise, is that value truly guiding you? He argues that those who rise to the top aren’t always the most talented, but the most consistent. This chapter made me reflect on my own routines and how I often confuse intention with action. Moawad’s reminder, that identity is shaped not by belief, but by habit, challenges us to own not just what we want, but how we show up.

Chapter 6, “Indiana Trevor and the Scroll of Doom,” felt especially relevant in a time when constant negativity seems inescapable. It explores doomscrolling and highlights studies on nonstop news cycles and social media’s impact on mental health—topics I related to personally. I left social media after repeatedly comparing my life to others’ highlight reels. Moawad captures the emotional toll of comparison—something I had felt but never fully expressed. One line stuck with me: “They’re working hard to mask their own insecurities and, in the process, they’re helping create insecurity in you”—a reminder that even those who seem to have it all together often don’t. He closes the chapter with a simple, lasting message: “Set the phone down and get on with your life.” That line helped me reclaim clarity in a world of constant comparison.

In Chapter 7, Moawad shares a line that struck me: “Starve your distractions. Feed your focus.” As someone who struggles to quiet mental noise, that phrase became a personal compass—a reminder to make space for what matters. “Starve your distractions” pushed me to examine the habits and inputs draining my attention and challenged me to be intentional with my time and let go of what keeps me stagnant. “Feed your focus” reinforced that progress isn’t about bursts of inspiration, it’s about daily commitment.

As much as the book resonated with me, it isn’t without flaws. One notable drawback is its pacing. In a time when readers seek clear, actionable insights, Getting to Neutral can take too long to deliver. Moawad often opens with extended backstories that, while insightful, delay the core message—the buildup feels like a long inhale when a sharper breath is needed. The principles are strong, but the path to them can test the reader’s patience.

The book may further lose some readers due to frequent name-dropping, especially when references to elite athletes don’t resonate. That said, Getting to Neutral feels more grounded and introspective than Moawad’s first book, with less explicit language and a more measured tone. A quieter humility runs through the pages, likely shaped by the personal challenges he was facing.

The final chapter, “There Is No Finish Line,” feels like an unexpected conclusion centering on stories about Billy Donovan, coach of the Chicago Bulls. Though sincere, these reflections didn’t quite resonate—but just before the close, Moawad delivers the line that brings it all together:

“We’re all in charge of our wins and losses because we’re in charge of what we do next…So as you look into your future, don’t assign so much weight to things that haven’t happened yet.”

Moawad closes with a message of empowerment:

“None of what has happened in the past predicts the future. Every moment is its own adventure. So you own that next moment. And the next. And the next. And you keep going.”

Did he know it would be the last page he’d ever write? His final message feels intentional—meant to help the reader move forward with hope, clarity, and the confidence to do so without him. For me, it was a lasting reminder that the next moment is always unwritten—and that continuing on is both the challenge and the reward.