The issue of how coaches communicate with their athletes to improve individual performance and team play is complex. Furthermore, the communication challenges facing coaches at all levels and in all sports are numerous. For example, in their attempts to motivate and communicate with a team or individual, a coach has to communicate to a wide variety of personality types, understand the contextual setting of the coach-athlete relationship, and be conscious of the circumstances surrounding the life of each athlete (Yukelson, 2001).

The first issue that makes coach-athlete communication difficult is that there are numerous personality types that respond to different styles of communication and motivational techniques. Research demonstrates a relationship between athletic performance and the athlete's personality, and there exists an association between personality and player position in some sports (Cox, 2002). Also, there is strong evidence to support the idea that coaches working in team sports will be working with specific personality types, while coaches working in individual sports will be coaching a different set of personality types (Cox, 2002). The issue gets even more complex when the contextual setting of the coach-athlete relationship is taken into consideration. An example of this is the difference between communicating and motivating a youth athlete and coaching a division-1 scholarship athlete. In addition, to effectively communicate with an athlete, the coach must be constantly aware of the type of relationship that has been developed with the athlete over a period of time. Finally, the ability to understand and respond to the individual needs of each athlete is a critical element of effective coach-athlete communication (Yukelson, 2001). Knowing and understanding each individual involves listening to the athlete, and taking the time to understand particular needs.

With so many complexities and implications of effective communication between the coach and athlete, it is easy to see why communication is such an enormous challenge facing coaches at all levels of competition. This paper will discuss a player evaluation system developed by Fresno State Football coaching staff as a means to overcome the communication challenges previously described.

During the off-season, Fresno State uses the individual player evaluation meetings to communicate with each player exactly how the coaches view them, what is expected of each athlete, and what areas of improvement are needed in order to get better and help the team. The goal of the evaluation meeting is to provide feedback to each player that can be used for the coming year. The evaluation system also provides the athlete an opportunity to discuss concerns or important issues regarding participation and his role on the team.

The evaluation model is consistent with current research in the area of communication and feedback in the sport setting. Providing athletes with motivational and instructional feedback benefits the athlete because it guides the participant towards a specific direction for improvement (Weinberg, 1999). As will be demonstrated in this article, the evaluation program developed by Fresno state provides both motivational and instructional feedback to each athlete. Research also shows that clear, honest, and direct communication is what coaches should be working towards (Yukelson, 2001). A key ingredient in the evaluation system used by Fresno State is providing athletes with an honest and straightforward assessment of their abilities and contribution to the team. The evaluation does not attempt to shield the athlete from negative feedback for poor performance. While this approach may not be appropriate for all levels or for all sports, to provide only positive feedback when the athlete may not be deserving of positive reinforcement is a disservice to the athlete and the team.

Elements of Effective Evaluation

There are three important elements in the way in which Fresno State evaluates a player. First, the head coach and coaching staff must have a vision and standard of what is expected of their players and team. At Fresno State, the standard is based on the goal of being a top 25 nationally ranked football program. This is an easy standard for players to understand, and makes it simple for the coaches to evaluate each player based on production and abilities measured against top 25 competition. If, in the coach's estimation, the athlete is not performing like a player in a top 25 program, the evaluation process is used to assess what has to happen to get the athlete up to the standard. By using the standard of the top 25 ranked teams in the country, Fresno State can utilize the training standards employed by these programs as a guide to setting up specific goals. This is foundational to the Fresno State evaluation method. Once the standard is established, the next step is to evaluate the athletes to see if they are meeting the expectations, and if they are not meeting them, to then develop a plan (i.e., short-term goals) that helps them measure up to the standard (i.e., long-term goal). In fact, research suggests that the best way to approach goal setting is to use short-range goals to keep the athlete focused on accomplishing the established long-range goals (Gould, 2001). Coach Hill uses the beginning of spring football and the end of the spring semester as target dates for short-range strength training goals and academic goals. Performance goals for spring football are established that are then evaluated at the end of the spring football season by each position coach.

The second important element to the evaluation process is using honest and straightforward communication. Fresno State strongly advocates that for the evaluation to be effective, the athlete needs honest and straightforward communication that does not attempt to water down how the coach or coaches view the athlete. Weinberg (1999) states that feedback "needs to be tied to a specific behavior or set of behaviors" (p. 121). This is an area that is the most difficult for coaches to address because some coaches are afraid of hurting an athlete's feelings. It should be clear however, that the goal isn't for the athletes to leave the meeting feeling good or bad about themselves, but to be told exactly how the coach or coaches view them contingent on specific performance levels. This type of feedback can often lead to dissatisfaction with current levels of performance, which then is translated into motivation to improve (Weinberg, 1999). Most athletes understand that it is not a matter of the coaches liking or disliking the athlete; it is about helping them become better players and individuals. A common misconception is that only positive feedback can build confidence. However, when an athlete chooses to respond to negative feedback and is stimulated to work on a specific weakness, the athlete gains confidence because he was able to overcome it and improve (Zinsser, 2001).

The third important element is using data to back up the assessment of the athlete. The Fresno State evaluation is based on production in the classroom, in the weight room and on the playing field. When an athlete's GPA is declining, or his output in the weight room is minimal, the coaches have numbers to back up the athlete's evaluation. This provides a personal history of the player that takes the subjectivity and emotions out of the equation. Furthermore, this feedback goes beyond the player's current level of proficiency in the desired skills and activities by providing information to the athlete regarding specific behaviors that should be performed, and levels of proficiency that should be achieved (Gould, 2001). This is very effective for the athlete to see, because the numbers don't lie, and the athlete can't blow it off as just the opinion of the coach. Also, when the athlete has success in the classroom or on the field, the player knows that the coaches are aware of these achievements. For example, when an athlete has significantly improved in the classroom or in the weight room, the player is presented and praised at the first team meeting of the spring semester. Finally, numbers give clear benchmarks in establishing goals for the athlete, and give the coach a measuring stick for tracking improved performance.

While there are many reasons why player evaluations are necessary and valuable, there are two main reasons why coaches should put an emphasis on them. The first reason is that they help the player improve in all aspects of his life. Because the evaluation of the athlete is not just on his football performance, but also on his classroom work, his strength training work, and off-field responsibilities, the player leaves the evaluation knowing exactly where he needs to improve. Also, because the player has had his weaknesses exposed, there is a time of soul searching for the athlete that usually leads to greater commitment in the classroom, in the weight room and on the playing field.

The second reason to use player evaluations is that it provides the opportunity to become a better team. When each player on the team has had the opportunity to go through the evaluation process, the expectation of what type of team Fresno State is striving to be has been thoroughly communicated. One of the most significant aspects of the evaluation process is that it builds an atmosphere that is beneficial to team success. Yukelson (2001) states that for healthy coach-athlete communication to occur, the coach should "take the time to get to know their athletes as unique goal-oriented individuals and find out what their strengths, interests, and needs are" (p.140). The Fresno State coaching staff is confident that the players understand what is expected of them, and they know what they need to be doing to get better. In addition, because it has been clearly communicated to them, the athletes do not have to wonder what the coach thinks of their abilities, but can instead spend their energy focusing on improving specific areas. Furthermore, if the athlete can feel good about knowing he was able to communicate his thoughts and feelings with the coaching staff, he in-turn becomes a more productive player in the program.

Evaluation Process and Results

The evaluation model used at Fresno State is based on a grading scale commonly used in the school setting on report cards. This approach is used because it is easy for the players to understand and identify with. The coach's evaluation is graded just like a report card: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and F=0. The player is graded on academics, strength training, and performance on and off the field.

Prior to meeting with each player, the coaching staff, academic advisor, and the strength coach meet for a week to evaluate each player. The academic advisor who examines transcripts of all coursework completed to date, teacher evaluation and input, and class attendance does the academic evaluation. The strength training evaluation is completed by the strength coach, and is based on strength gains, speed increases, size and body composition, as well as attitude and work habits in the weight room over the course of the year. The offensive and defensive coordinators then evaluate each player by assessing their major strengths and weaknesses, improvement areas, and expectations of the player for the coming year. This evaluation is based on statistics, profile videotapes of practice, games, and scrimmages. Finally, Coach Hill will give an overall assessment of the player that includes addressing the athlete's commitment level to the team based on established team rules. The three Fresno State football team rules that are addressed to each player on the team are: (a) Be there - can we trust you, (b) Do your best - are you committed, and (c) Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Because of the number of players on the team, the player meetings take two weeks to complete. Half-hour blocks are scheduled for each meeting that includes all evaluation members and the athlete. The athlete is given a profile folder that has all his academic records, strength training records, and position coach evaluation. The head coach then explains to the athlete what the goal is in doing the evaluation, and proceeds to walk the athlete through each phase as presented in his folder. As the meeting progresses, the highlights and lowlights are emphasized, and the athlete is confronted on the areas that need the most improvement. While the meetings are challenging, when the player leaves the meeting he has a definite understanding of where he sits in terms of his role on the team, how the coaches see him and areas he needs to improve upon.

Conclusion

The results of these meetings have been extremely successful for the Fresno State football program. Many of the players appreciate the honesty in which the coaches spoke to them, and like the fact that the coaching staff cared enough to take the time to do such an extensive evaluation. The biggest changes usually occur from the players who don't work very hard in the weight room or during practice. Many of them are surprised that their evaluations were so poor, and had no idea that their work habits were below expectation. This revelation led to drastic changes in attitude, commitment level, and work habits. Another positive result from the evaluations is that many of the key players significantly improved their leadership skills when they were challenged to become the leaders of the team. The players began to see themselves as a nationally ranked team, and the football program has made tremendous strides individually and as a team because the message of what is expected was effectively communicated. As a testament to this, the 2001 football team finished the season 11-3, played in its third consecutive bowl game, achieved a national ranking as high as number 8 in the nation, and spent 90% of the season ranked in the top 25. The coaching staff feels that the evaluation meetings were a key element in raising the standard of play, making clear academic progress and in achieving the goal of becoming a top 25 team.

The Fresno State evaluation system is not perfect, but it has been used as an effective tool in communicating coach expectations and views to the athletes. Not all players respond well to the feedback, and it is important to take into consideration that this program is designed for a successful division 1 football program. However, all athletes (regardless of age and maturity level) need feedback to know where they stand and how they are progressing in relation to individual and team goals (Yukelson, 2001), and Fresno State's evaluation program can be used as a great tool to accomplish this.

*References available from Wade Gilbert and Jenelle N. Gilbert.