College football players tend to train the hardest four days before kickoff. (Credit: SleeplessElite on Shutterstock)

In A Nutshell

• College football players work significantly harder during Tuesday practices than in Saturday games, covering 37% more distance and absorbing 44% more physical load according to GPS tracking data from 27 Division-II athletes.
• Position groups show dramatically different training patterns: Skill players (quarterbacks, receivers, defensive backs) complete 81% of their weekly hard running in practice, while linemen do only 48% in practice and 52% during games.
• Future professional players showed higher intensity, hard running distance, and overall physical loads throughout the season compared to teammates whose careers ended after college, and two weren’t even listed as starters.
• Practice intensity (yards per minute) never dropped below game pace all week, staying 15-16% above competition levels even on Thursday, showing coaches prioritize maintaining game speed regardless of volume.

Practice harder than games? For college football players, that’s not just a coaching slogan. It’s measurable reality.

Scientists strapped GPS sensors to 27 Division-II football players for an entire season and discovered something that might surprise fans watching Saturday’s game. During practice sessions early in the week, players covered 37% more distance, absorbed 44% more physical load, and pushed their bodies considerably harder than they did in games.

On Tuesdays, typically four days before kickoff, athletes experienced their most grueling workouts of the week. Total distance traveled exceeded game levels by more than a third. Forces on their bodies spiked nearly half again as high as competition demands. Even the pace of practice ran about 11% faster than game speed, with peak practice pace later in the week reaching 16% above game levels.

But the “train harder than you play” approach doesn’t apply equally across the roster.

Why Position Groups Train Differently in College Football

Researchers from the University of Nebraska-Kearney divided players into three groups. Linemen handled offensive and defensive line duties. “Big Skill” athletes included tight ends, linebackers, running backs, and fullbacks. “Skill” players covered quarterbacks, wide receivers, defensive backs, and special teams.

For Skill position athletes, the players who typically run the most, practices dwarfed game demands. These athletes accumulated 81% of their weekly “hard running” during practice sessions, leaving only 19% for actual games. Hard running means moving faster than 10 miles per hour: the kind of explosive speed that separates big plays from routine ones. During peak practice days, Skill players logged 69% more hard running distance than they’d see in competition.

Linemen told a completely different story. During the three main practice days each week, they accumulated only 48% of their total hard running distance. Games accounted for the other 52%. For linemen, competition remained more physically demanding than practice for certain metrics.

Big Skill athletes landed in the middle, accumulating 72% of their hard running during practices and 28% during games.

A cornerback and an offensive tackle might wear the same uniform, but their physical demands exist in different worlds.

College football players who went on to go pro showed extra intensity. (Credit: pixabay.com)

GPS Tracking Shows How Football Practice Really Works

Twenty-seven players volunteered for the study, but not just any players. Only athletes who competed in at least 60% of the team’s 11 conference games made the final cut. The final group averaged participation in 10 out of 11 games.

Each athlete wore a GPS unit tucked in a pouch between their shoulder blades, underneath their shoulder pads. The sensors, which sampled data 10 times per second, tracked position, speed, acceleration, and forces acting on the body in three dimensions. Over 32 practice sessions and 11 games, these units captured comprehensive movement data.

Practice sessions got categorized by their proximity to game day. Tuesday practices happened four days beforethe next game. Wednesday was three days out, and Thursday fell two days before kickoff. The team held a walkthrough the day before competition.

Researchers tracked seven measurements: total practice duration, total distance covered, yards per minute (a measure of intensity), hard running distance, number of hard running efforts, and two types of physical load accounting for forces on the body.

A typical week showed a clear pattern. Load up early, then taper as game day approaches.

On Tuesday, players spent 25% more time at practice than they’d spend competing in a game. Total distance traveled jumped 37% above game demands. Physical loads ran 44% higher than competition levels.

By Thursday, the picture shifted. Practice duration dropped to 88% of game time. Total distance fell to 97% of what players would cover in competition. Physical loads dipped slightly below game levels.

But one metric never dropped below game intensity: yards per minute. Even on Thursday, players moved at 116% of the pace they’d maintain during actual competition. On Wednesday, that figure reached 120%. Coaches kept practice moving at game speed or faster, even when cutting total volume.

When researchers split the roster into starters and non-starters, patterns emerged. Non-starters accumulated more hard running distance and completed more hard running efforts than starters. Backups need extra conditioning work and skill repetitions to close the gap with established starters.

Starters showed higher intensity levels. Their yards-per-minute numbers outpaced non-starters. They moved faster when they did run, even if they didn’t run as far overall.

Five players from the Division-II squad went on to play professionally. When researchers compared them to teammates whose careers ended after college, the future pros showed higher numbers across nearly every measure: intensity, hard running distance, hard running efforts, and overall physical load.

Two of those five future professionals weren’t listed as starters. Their GPS numbers told a story their depth chart position didn’t.

What Training Load Data Means for Coaches

These numbers, published in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, allow coaches to plan with precision. If practice consistently exceeds game demands, they can feel confident about physical preparedness. But football players face constant injury risk, and overtraining amplifies that danger. Athletes who absorb too much physical stress without adequate recovery show higher injury rates. The research didn’t track injuries, so it can’t determine whether the team’s approach protected or endangered players.

Position-specific patterns suggest one-size-fits-all practice plans might miss the mark. Linemen need different preparation than Skill players. Big Skill athletes require something in between.

Twenty-seven players from one team at one competitive level doesn’t represent all of college football. Division-II teams face different physical demands than Division-I powerhouses orNFL franchises. GPS units track movement and forces, but they don’t measure contact forces during blocking and tackling: some of the most violent aspects of football.

For generations, coaches designed practices through a combination of experience, intuition, and tradition. The study offers something more concrete—numbers that quantify exactly how hard players work throughout the week. Whether coaches adjust practices based on what the data shows will determine if training harder than playing translates into wins on Saturday.

---

Disclaimer: This article summarizes published research for general information only. It is not professional training, medical, or coaching advice. Athletes and staff should consult qualified sports science or medical professionals before changing any conditioning program.

---

Paper Summary

Methodology

Researchers recruited 27 NCAA Division-II football players who participated in at least 60% of the team’s 11 conference games during the 2025 season. Athletes wore GPS units during all practice sessions and games throughout the regular season. GPS units sampled data 10 times per second, tracking position, acceleration, and forces in three dimensions. The team held three main practice sessions per week, scheduled four, three, and two days before games, plus walkthroughs the day before competition. Scientists categorized players into three position groups: Linemen (offensive and defensive linemen), Big Skill (tight ends, linebackers, running backs, fullbacks), and Skill (quarterbacks, wide receivers, defensive backs, special teams). Data analysis used factorial analysis of variance to compare training loads between position groups and practice days and to assess interactions between these factors. The research team also conducted subgroup analyses comparing starters to non-starters and players who continued to professional careers versus those who did not.

Results

Significant differences appeared between position groups, practice days, and the interaction between the two factors for most measured variables. Relative to game values (set at 100%), practice sessions four days before games showed total duration 25% higher, total distance 37% higher, yards per minute 15% higher, hard running distance 33% higher, hard running efforts 33% higher, 2D load 40% higher, and 3D load 44% higher. By two days before games, most metrics dropped closer to game levels, though yards per minute remained 16% above competition intensity. Position groups showed distinct patterns. Skill players accumulated 81% of their hard running distance during practices with only 19% coming in games. Big Skill players showed 72% in practices versus 28% in games. Linemen reversed the pattern, accumulating only 48% of hard running distance in practices and 52% during games. Subgroup analysis revealed that non-starters completed more total hard running distance and efforts than starters, but starters maintained higher intensity measured as yards per minute. Athletes who advanced to professional football showed significantly higher values for yards per minute, hard running distance and efforts, and overall physical loads compared to those who didn’t continue playing professionally.

Limitations

The study’s sample size of 27 players from a single Division-II team limits generalizability to other competitive levels or programs. Division-II football differs from Division-I and professional levels in physical demands, resources, and scheduling. GPS units tracked external loads (movement, forces) but couldn’t measure internal loads like heart rate, core temperature, or perceived exertion. Contact forces during blocking and tackling, which create significant stress in football, weren’t fully captured by the GPS technology. The research didn’t track injuries, so the relationship between these training loads and injury risk remains unclear. The study focused only on the regular season, excluding preseason camp and playoffs. Position group classifications, while practical, might have obscured differences between specific positions within each group. The hard running threshold of 10.1 miles per hour, though recommended by the GPS manufacturer for football, differs from thresholds used in previous research, making direct comparisons challenging. Data from walkthrough sessions one day before games weren’t collected because players didn’t wear GPS units during these lower-intensity sessions.

Funding and Disclosures

The authors declared that no financial support was received for the research or publication of the article. The study was conducted with support from the Clara Wu and Joseph Tsai Foundation and the University of Nebraska-Kearney INSpRE Instrumentation Core. The authors declared no commercial or financial relationships that could constitute a conflict of interest.

Publication Information

Johnson QR, Yang Y, Cabarkapa D, Sealey D, Stock S, Gleason D, Frels C, Rink M, and Fry AC. “Periodization for success—in-season external training loads relative to competition load in American football.” Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, Volume 7, Article 1662240. Published September 18, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1662240.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called “brilliant,” “fantastic,” and “spot on” by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

Sophia Naughton

Associate Editor