Literature DB >> 21478765

Combine performance descriptors and predictors of recruit ranking for the top high school football recruits from 2001 to 2009: differences between position groups.

Jamie J Ghigiarelli1.   

Abstract

Several studies have documented the normative data for football combine performance measures in college and professional players. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the anthropometric and combine performance differences between highly recruited and recruited high school football players. A secondary purpose was to provide a historical basis of descriptive data for elite high school football players from 2001 to 2009. Height, weight, 40-yd sprint time, 20-yd shuttle time, vertical jump height, angle drive drill time, and broad jump distance were extracted for 2,560 players from a commercially available website. Mean scores across star value and playing positions were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and 1-way ANOVAs. Statistical significance was found between highly recruited (5 and 4 stars) and recruited players (3 and 2 stars) for height (highly recruited = 1.878 ± 0.06 m, recruited 1.85 ± 0.11 m), weight (highly recruited = 99.77 ± 4.76 kg, recruited = 97.54 ± 4.84 kg), 40-yd sprint (highly recruited = 4.76 ± 0.327 seconds, recruited = 4.84 ± 0.142 seconds), and vertical jump (highly recruited = 0.775 ± 0.11 m, recruited = 0.750 ± 0.121 m). Ten backward stepwise regression models were calculated (position × variables) with statistical significance set at the p < 0.05 level. The 40-yd sprint time, height, and weight were significant predictors of star value across 10 positions. These data provide anthropometric and performance profiles for highly recruited high school football players. Sprinting ability and physical size are the most consistent predictors of subjective ranking. The results may help strength and conditioning specialists better understand the anthropometric and physical attributes that distinguish highly recruited from recruited players and which attributes are likely to predict higher star value scores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21478765     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318215f546

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  5 in total

1.  You can't teach speed: sprinters falsify the deliberate practice model of expertise.

Authors:  Michael P Lombardo; Robert O Deaner
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  Anthropometrics, Physical Performance, and Injury Characteristics of Youth American Football.

Authors:  Shane V Caswell; Ashley Ausborn; Guoqing Diao; David C Johnson; Timothy S Johnson; Rickie Atkins; Jatin P Ambegaonkar; Nelson Cortes
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2016-08-18

3.  Physical Characteristics and Performance of Japanese Top-Level American Football Players.

Authors:  Daichi Yamashita; Masaki Asakura; Yoshihiko Ito; Shinzo Yamada; Yosuke Yamada
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Profiling of Junior College Football Players and Differences between Position Groups.

Authors:  Robert G Lockie; Adrina Lazar; Ashley J Orjalo; DeShaun L Davis; Matthew R Moreno; Fabrice G Risso; Matthew E Hank; Randal C Stone; Nicholas W Mosich
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2016-08-05

5.  What performance characteristics determine elite versus nonelite athletes in the same sport?

Authors:  Daniel S Lorenz; Michael P Reiman; B J Lehecka; Andrew Naylor
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.843

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.