Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1999, 13(3), 210–213
q 1999 National Strength & Conditioning Association
Strength and Physiological Characteristics of
NCAA Division III American Football Players
W. DANIEL SCHMIDT
Department of Health and Physical Education, The College of New Jersey, Trenton, New Jersey 08650.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine strength and
physiological parameters in 78 American football players
who reported for the 1994 and 1995 preseason football train-
ing camp at a National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) Division III college. The athletes were each tested
one time for explosive power, upper-body strength, lower-
body strength, muscular endurance, speed endurance, lower-
body flexibility, and body composition. The performance
data were analyzed according to position and playing status
(starter vs. nonstarter). Significant (p # 0.05) differences
were observed between positions for all but the sit and reach
test. For measures of muscular and speed endurance and
lower-body explosive power, defensive backs scored the
highest, whereas for measures of upper- and lower-body
strength and upper-body explosive power, defensive line-
men scored the highest. Starters performed significantly bet-
ter than nonstarters for the seated medicine ball put, bench
press, and hip sled. Further investigation that includes more
NCAA Division III players from different institutions and
regions is still warranted.
Key Words: position, starter, nonstarter
Reference Data: Schmidt, W.D. Strength and Physio-
logical Characteristics of NCAA Division III American
Football Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13(3):210–213.
1999.
Introduction
P erformance evaluation of collegiate athletes, partic-
ularly American football players, is of continuing
interest among strength and conditioning profession-
als. Research and common sense dictate that to im-
prove athletic performance, one must conduct regular
strength and fitness assessments with their athletes to
identify areas of weakness and evaluate the effective-
ness of their training regimen. Numerous articles have
been written describing the physical characteristics of
major college football players (National Collegiate Ath-
letic Association [NCAA] Division I). Survey research
by Black and Roundy (2) reported differences between
positions and relationships between playing status
210
(starter vs. nonstarter) and predictor variables that
seemed to indicate that players who scored high on
tests of strength, power, and speed were more likely
to be starters on a given team. A survey by Berg et al.
(1) compared physical characteristics among Division
I teams (n 5 40) and found those teams ranked in the
Associated Press Top 20 performed better on measures
of power and strength than teams not ranked.
Several studies have been conducted using players
from single Division I football programs. Burke et al.
(3) found that 40-yd-dash time, body composition, and
upper-body strength (bench press) were of merit to a
major college football team for the purpose of player
classification. Daniel et al. (5) reported a high corre-
lation between body composition and football ability.
Costill et al. (4) examined anaerobic power as mea-
sured by the Margaria stair step test (8) and found
significant differences between players grouped ac-
cording to ‘‘potential success.’’
Despite this body of literature, data on players
from small colleges are scarce and limited to survey
research. In an extensive survey that included 6 NCAA
Division III schools, Fry and Kraemer (7) compared
collegiate football players based on position, playing
ability, and caliber of play (NCAA Division I, II, or III).
dos Remedios and Holland (6) have also conducted a
survey to describe various physical and performance
characteristics of community college football players.
Mayhew et al. (9) have developed strength norms for
NCAA Division II players based on their research with
336 athletes at 3 schools. The lack of research with Di-
vision III athletes is surprising when one considers
that, according to the NCAA, the number of nonschol-
arship colleges (Division III) that offer American foot-
ball as an intercollegiate sport is nearly equal to the
number of Division I schools that have football pro-
grams (199 vs. 224, respectively) and exceeds the num-
ber of Division II schools with football programs (141).
Although the physical assessment information derived
from Division I and II football players is useful to
these specific athletes, the applicability of these norms
to players from nonscholarship institutions is suspect.
To effectively design strength and conditioning pro-

grams tailored to Division III athletes, it is imperative
that the professionals working with these athletes have
access to realistic physical parameters indicative of this
level of competition. Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to examine strength and physiological pa-
rameters in American football players at an NCAA Di-
vision III institution. Comparisons were made between
position and playing status (starter vs. nonstarter).
Methods
American football players from a NCAA Division III
school located in the northeastern U.S.A. participated
in this study. The football program at this school has
been successful, with 3 Division III postseason playoff
appearances, 3 conference championships, and consis-
tent Top 10 rankings within the past 5 years. For 2
consecutive years (1994–1995), athletes were tested
when they first arrived for preseason training camp in
mid August. Although many men were tested both
years, only the player’s initial test data were used in
the analyses. The rationale for using 2 years was to
increase the database of the study. Height, weight, age,
and playing position were all recorded at the start of
testing. Body composition was determined using a 2-
site skinfold equation (11) with body density adjust-
ments made for African American players (10). Testing
parameters were designed according to the National
Strength and Conditioning Association recommenda-
tions for testing American football players. The prin-
ciple investigator trained undergraduate students and
members of the coaching staff to perform the test pro-
cedures. Although some of the tests were adminis-
tered by the principle investigator (% body fat) and
coaches both years (vertical jump, hip sled, and bench
press), a limitation exists in that there were 2 different
groups of students from the first to the second year.
Acceptable performances for each test were deter-
mined based on the following criteria:
Seated Medicine Ball Put
The athlete was seated on a chair with back supported
and knees bent at approximately a 908 angle. The ath-
lete then pushed the medicine ball (5 lb) up and out
at approximately a 458 angle as far as possible using
both hands. The distance from the back support to the
spot where the ball landed was measured. The best of
2 trials was recorded.
Sit and Reach
The athlete was seated with legs extended and feet (no
shoes) placed against a sit and reach box (Health Ac-
cessories, Seattle, WA). Keeping the legs straight, the
athlete bent forward at the hips and pushed the wood-
en marker as far as possible on the box. The best of 2
trials was recorded.
Characteristics of D-3 Football Players 211
Vertical Jump
A two-footed takeoff was used with no approach steps
permitted. The score was determined by measuring
the difference between a fully extended standing reach
and maximal vertical jump reach. The best of 2 trials
was recorded.
Timed Sit-Ups (1 Minute)
The athlete was supine with knees bent and hands
crossed in front of his chest. A partner held the ath-
lete’s feet down. A repetition was counted each time
the athlete touched his elbows to his knees and re-
turned his shoulder blades to the mat. The athlete per-
formed as many repetitions as possible in 1 minute.
Pull-Ups
The athlete started with arms fully extended, a for-
ward grip on the bar, and knees bent. A repetition was
counted each time the athlete’s chin passed above the
horizontal bar and returned to a full hanging exten-
sion.
One Repetition Maximum Leg Press With Hip Sled
Using the hip sled machine, the athlete, from an an-
gled supine position, performed a 1 repetition maxi-
mum (1RM) leg press. A ‘‘good lift’’ was one in which
the weight was lowered to a point where the knees
were bent at a 458 angle and then pressed to full leg
extension.
1RM Bench Press
The athlete was supine with hips and shoulder blades
in contact with the bench and feet flat on the floor.
With a grip slightly wider than shoulder width, the
bar was lowered to the chest (slightly above the nip-
ples) and pushed upward until the arms were fully
extended.
Dips
The athlete was positioned on parallel bars with the
arms locked and the body vertical. The athlete lowered
himself so the humerus was parallel with the floor and
returned upward to the ‘‘arms locked’’ position. As
many repetitions as possible were performed.
The 300-Yard Shuttle
The athlete sprinted 25 yd, turned, and sprinted back
to the original starting line a total of 6 times (12 single
25-yd trips or 6 full trips). The time it took to complete
this task was recorded.
The principle investigator met with the football
coaching staff to verify players’ positions and playing
status (starters or nonstarters), and data were ana-
lyzed accordingly. Players were grouped by position:
backs (quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers,
and defensive backs); linemen (centers, guards, tack-
les, and defensive ends); and tight ends and lineback-
ers (TE/LB).
An analysis of variance was used (2 3 3) to com-
212 Schmidt

Table 1. Physical characteristics of Division III college Table 2. Muscular and speed endurance and vertical
football players; values expressed as mean 6 SD (range). jump scores for Division III college football players; values
expressed as mean 6 SD (range).
Tight ends
Defensive and Tight ends
backs Linemen linebackers Defensive and
Variable (n 5 35) (n 5 26) (n 5 17) backs Linemen linebackers
Variable (n 5 35) (n 5 26) (n 5 17)
Age (y) 19.9 6 1.4 19.9 6 1.6 19.9 6 1.2
(18–23) (18–23) (18–22) Sit-ups 60.2 6 10.2 53.3 6 7.8* 54.1 6 8.4
Height (cm) 179.1 6 5.6* 184.4 6 4.3 182.6 6 3.3 (38–88) (38–67) (37–66)
(165–188) (175–193) (175–188) Dips 31 6 10.3 22.1 6 7.6* 28.7 6 10.4
Weight (kg) 82.9 6 10* 107.2 6 11.2** 94.8 6 5.9*** (18–50) (7–36) (14–54)
(65.9–106.8) (84.1–138) (82.3–107.7) 300-yard shuttle (s) 58.4 6 2.2 64.4 6 4.7 60.2 6 2.2**
Body fat (%) 10.2 6 3.4* 18.3 6 5.1** 13.7 6 4.0*** (54.5–65) (57–74) (56.3–65)
(3.9–17.1) (7.0–26.4) (6.7–22.3) Vertical jump (cm) 63 6 7.1 56 6 6.7* 59.4 6 7.7
(51–79) (46–74) (46–71)
* Defensive backs significantly different (p # 0.05) than Pull-ups 11.5 6 4.9 5.4 6 3.6* 9.8 6 3.9
linemen and tight ends and linebackers. (3–25) (0–13) (3–16)
** Linemen significantly different (p # 0.05) than defensive
backs and tight ends and linebackers. * Linemen significantly different (p # 0.05) from defensive
*** Tight ends and linebackers significantly different (p # backs.
0.05) than linemen and defensive backs. ** Tight ends and linebackers significantly better (p # 0.05)
than linemen.

pare performance by position and playing status

(starters vs. nonstarters). A statistical significance level Table 3. Upper- and lower-body strength, upper-body
power, and flexibility in Division III college football players;
of p # 0.05 was chosen. When significance was ob-
values expressed as mean 6 SD (range).
served, Tukey post hoc multiple comparisons were
used to detect specific differences. Tight ends
Defensive and
Results and Discussion backs Linemen linebackers
Variable (n 5 35) (n 5 26) (n 5 17)
Physical characteristics by position are reported in Ta-
ble 1. Significant main effect differences were observed Bench press (kg) 120.7 6 20 143.9 6 22.3* 132.9 6 29
between positions for height, weight, and body com- (84.1–165.9) (97.7–188.6) (97.7–193.2)
position. The backs were significantly shorter, weighed Hip sled (kg) 191.2 6 34.5 234.4 6 50* 225.1 6 49.6
less, and had a lower percent body fat than both the (104.5–263.6) (170.5–368.2) (168.2–322.7)
linemen and the TE/LB. The TE/LB were leaner and Seated medicine 8.02 6 0.92 8.73 6 0.91* 8.50 6 0.76
weighed less than the linemen. For measures of mus- ball (m) (6.1–10.1) (6.2–10.8) (7.3–10.4)
cular endurance (sit-ups, dips, pull-ups) and speed en- Sit and reach 11.4 6 3.8 14.2 6 5.2** 10.5 6 6.5
(cm) (2.5–20.3) (3.8–22.9) (0–24.1)
durance (300-yd shuttle), as well as lower-body explo-
sive power (vertical jump), the backs scored the high- * Linemen significantly better (p # 0.05) than defensive
est and were significantly better than the linemen (Ta- backs.
ble 2). The TE/LB also scored significantly higher than ** Linemen significantly better (p # 0.05) than tight ends and
the linemen on the 300-yd shuttle run and pull-ups linebackers.
(Table 2). Regarding upper- and lower-body strength
(bench press and hip sled) and upper-body explosive
power (seated medicine ball put), linemen performed rameter except the timed sit-ups. There were no sig-
the best with scores significantly greater than the nificant interactions for any of the test variables.
backs (Table 3). For the flexibility test (sit and reach), The measures reported herein are, to my knowl-
linemen scored the highest with significantly greater edge, the first data reported for Division III American
flexibility than the TE/LB (Table 3). football players, excluding the survey research of Fry
When comparisons were made between playing and Kraemer (7). Preseason testing had not yet been
status, significant main effects were observed with the instituted before this investigation; therefore, some of
starters (n 5 35) performing better than the nonstart- the players were recent high school graduates and oth-
ers (n 5 43) on the seated medicine ball put (p , 0.05), ers were seniors playing their final year of college foot-
bench press (p , 0.0006), and hip sled (p , 0.002). On ball. Furthermore, with no formalized off-season train-
average, the starters scored higher on every test pa- ing regimen, players were simply encouraged to work

out on their own, thus making it difficult to examine
possible training effects. Comparison of the mean
scores on the bench press and vertical jump indicates
that the athletes in the present study performed better
on the bench press (3%) and substantially lower on the
vertical jump (12%) than those described by Fry and
Kraemer (7). It is difficult to explain this finding other
than to speculate that differing test standards may
have been used for the bench press and vertical jump.
Based on previous research with Division I and II foot-
ball players, the results of the present study are con-
sistent with the position (2, 9) and playing status (2,
3) differences observed in the studies cited. Not sur-
prisingly, when compared with similar parameters
measured recently with Division I football players (2),
Division III players on average are shorter (3%), weigh
less (9%), score lower on the vertical jump (20%) and
bench press (16%), and have a higher percentage of
body fat (8%). Comparisons to Division II football
players (9) revealed that although the Division III play-
ers were shorter (1%) and had a lower vertical jump
score (2%), they actually weighed more (3%) and
scored higher on the bench press (10%). This can best
be explained by the fact that the Division II data used
for comparison were reported in 1987, and football
players at all levels are seemingly bigger, stronger, and
faster now than they have ever been.
Although strength and conditioning programs at
the NCAA Division III level are often underfunded
and, in some cases, nonexistent, there is a strong need
for further data collection on these athletes. The results
reported herein represent a first step in the develop-
ment of strength and conditioning norms for Division
III football players. With further research and assess-
ment, strength programs can be designed that are spe-
cific to these athletes who, in terms of absolute num-
ber, represent a significant portion of American foot-
ball players.
Practical Applications
Generally speaking, there are few data that describe
strength and physiological characteristics of Division
III athletes. The results reported herein will allow foot-
ball coaches and players in Division III programs to
see how specific test performances compare with those
of other players competing at the same level. The in-
formation will also be useful for determining what po-
sition may offer athletes the best chance for success
based on their test performances. Although individual
variability must always be taken into account when
Characteristics of D-3 Football Players 213
designing an effective conditioning program, realistic
testing norms and parameters must also be used as
the initial starting point. Strength and conditioning
programs for Division III football players can hope-
fully be made more specific and, therefore, more ef-
fective based on the numbers reported herein. Further
investigation of Division III athletes in general is nec-
essary if the professionals training these athletes are
to improve performance standards.
Note: W. Daniel Schmidt is now with the Department
of Physical Education and Health Promotion at the
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, WI 54901.
References
1. BERG, K., R. LATIN, AND T. BAECHLE. Physical and performance
characteristics of NCAA Division I football players. Res. Q. Exerc.
Sport 61:395–401. 1990.
2. BLACK, W., AND E. ROUNDY. Comparisons of size, strength,
speed, and power in NCAA Division I-A football players. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 8:80–85. 1994.
3. BURKE, E.J., E. WINSLOW, AND W.V. STRUBE. Measures of body
composition and performance in major college football players.
J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 20:173–179. 1980.
4. COSTILL, D.L., W.M. HOFFMAN, F. KEHOE, S.J. MILLER, AND W.C.
MYERS. Maximum anaerobic power among college football play-
ers. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 8:103–106. 1968.
5. DANIEL, M., B. BROWN, AND D. GORMAN. Strength and anthro-
pometric characteristics of selected offensive and defensive uni-
versity-level football players. Percept. Mot. Skills 59:127–130. 1984.
6. DOS REMEDIOS, R., AND G. HOLLAND. Physical and performance
characteristics of community college football players. Natl. Col-
legiate Athletic Assoc. J. 14(5):9–12. 1992.
7. FRY, A., AND W. KRAEMER. Physical performance characteristics
of American collegiate football players. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res.
5(3):126–138. 1991.
8. MARGARIA, R., P. AGHEMO, AND E. ROVELLI. Measurement of
muscular power (anaerobic) in man. J. Appl. Physiol. 21:1662–
1664. 1966.
9. MAYHEW, J.L., B. LEVY, T. MCCORMICK, AND G. EVANS. Strength
norms for NCAA division II college football players. Natl. Col-
legiate Athletic Assoc. J. 9(3):67–69. 1987.
10. SCHUTTE, J.E., E.J. TOWNSEND, J. HUGG, R.F. SHOUP, R.M. MAL-
INA, AND C.J. BLOMQVIST. Density of lean body mass is greater
in Blacks than in Whites. J. Appl. Physiol. 56:1647–1649. 1984.
11. SLOAN, A.W., AND J.B. WEIR. Nomograms for prediction of body
density and total body fat from skinfold measurements. J. Appl.
Physiol. 28:221–222. 1970.
Acknowledgments
This article was presented in abstract form at the 1996
National Conference and Exhibition of the National
Srength and Conditioning Association in Atlanta, GA.
The author would like to thank the players and coach-
ing staff of The College of New Jersey (formerly Tren-
ton State College) football team for their cooperation
and assistance with this research.