About Us

It starts with a dream. A dream that must be lived. Where living is more than just going through the motions of life… it’s putting in the work, day in and day out to become that which you aspire to be.

At Sports University™ we understand that caliber of work. Especially, as it relates to sports training and athlete development. And from that understanding, we’ve created the formula for developing Superior Athletes. With it, aspiring athletes finally have access to the level of training and development they need to live their dreams and become the next generation of top HS, D1, and professional athletes alike.

There is nothing in life that lives without that which must die. And there is nothing in life gained without first having to take it from someone else. So as athletes, for our dreams to live, the part of us that doesn’t want to do the work, must die. Only then, can we develop the necessary skills, and become mentally and physically strong enough to take that roster spot or win away from anyone who believed it to be theirs.

Perhaps a bit provocative, but in the world of who wins, who loses, who starts, who sits, full ride college scholarships, nil, and draft picks, our words are truth, nonetheless. Even more provocative, is the reality of where every athlete must be willing to go, less they be willing to concede their dream…

An acronym for Work, Assert, Repeat, WAR™ is the 3-step process through which athletes make their will (dream) known. And Going To WAR™ is simply the act through which they force it, be done.

• Work – Everything that must be done to accomplish the mission and live the dream, regardless of how easy or difficult it may be.
• Assert – The confident and forceful nature (intensity, killer instinct, physicality) with which we must attack every task, come what may. Because the only thing we know for certain is that tomorrow (our dreams) cannot exist by allowing our current limitations, fears, doubts, or emotions to concede the day.
• Repeat (fire) – The consistent and relentless effort needed to develop the required skills and physical attributes to conquer any challenge.

Sports training is the process of developing athletes for sports. The purpose of sports training is to produce superior athletes. At the youth level, this means producing athletes capable of showing up to high school ready to rock. At the high school level, it means producing D1 athletes. Not just any D1 athlete though, D1 athletes who are ready to make an impact.

This is what sports training is about. And, these are the results that any parent or athlete enrolled in a serious sports training program should expect. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case and that’s a problem. Because “training” is exactly, the action of teaching someone a particular skill(s) in line with performing a specific function. But, all too often, especially in athletes who don’t already possess a high level of innate/ natural ability, we see training incapable of teaching or developing much of anything.

In more innate, naturally gifted athletes, we see a plateau effect, where regardless of the amount of work they put in, there is little to no change in their overall sport/ position-specific ability. Sadly, both of these observations point to one thing… ineffective training. The question now becomes, how do we ensure that a program is capable of providing effective training? To answer this question, we went to work. In the process, we discovered that effective training has 2 requirements.

1. The program must understand what the required work is.
2. The athlete must:
   • Go To WAR™
   • Do the Work.
   • Assert themselves every rep.
   • Repeat the required tasks to mastery.

We also found that the traditional sports training model had no idea what the work was. So, we went back to work, this time dedicating ourselves to developing the essential technologies to enable this level of training. And no, that’s not just hype. We’ve spent the last 10 years solving sports training-related problems. The result?  T3™, Combat Logic™, and Sports Unversity™.

Developed by Neal E. Saunders, T3™ or Triangular Training Theory™ is the foundation on which we build the most powerful and effective task-driven, knowledge-based sports training platform imaginable. Unlike traditional sports training, T3™ defines 3 fundamental Aspects of Development (AODs). Then, it uses Combat Logic™️ to build the necessary framework, as it relates to an athlete’s current -vs.- required ability at a given sport/ position. And with it, we can now define the required training needed to produce the desired result. The 3 fundamental aspects of development that form the basis of T3™ are METLEs, MTR-F, and ATCs.

METLEs.

METLEs or Mission Essential Task List Executions are the individual sport-related, position-specific tasks that athletes must be able to execute in response to the variety of in-game stimuli. As athletes develop, they will be able to “combine” or “stack” these individual tasks into Combined Functions (CF). When it comes to METLEs, an athlete’s ability to perform these individual tasks and Combined Functions under pressure is what truly separates one athlete from another.

MTR-F.

MTR-F or Motor Functionality is the coordination of the body’s nervous system, muscles, and brain, as is required to perform any sport-related, position-specific METLE + CF. There are 5 MTR-F levels.

• Level 1: Knowledge. Knowledge is critical to athletic development, Without it the mind cannot effectively coordinate the body to function in the desired capacity.
  • Does your athlete “know” what they’re being asked to do?
  • Can they recite the knowledge and or steps?
• Level 2: Association. As athletes begin associating knowledge to task, they’ll go from choppy, uncoordinated, and hesitant movements to smoother, quicker, more coordinated, and confident ones.
  • As the mind and body are properly developed (MTR-F), the execution of METLEs becomes increasingly more automatic.
  • Depending on the task association can take days, weeks, months, and even years of training to develop.
• Level 3: Automatic. When automatic, the execution of METLEs no longer requires conscious thought to perform. Now, the brain is able to allocate the entirety of its conscious processing power to the real-time visual processing (RTVP) of the game.
  • RTVP is the key to developing superior athletes.
  • LV-3: Automatic refers to an athlete’s ability to demonstrate automatic behavior, without any FX, in their training environment.
• Level 4: Automatic.
  • Refers to an athlete’s ability to demonstrate automatic behavior, without any FX, at an equal or lesser level of competition.
• Level 5: Automatic.
  • Refers to an athlete’s ability to demonstrate automatic behavior, without any FX, at any level of competition.

ATCs.

ATCs, or Athletic Traits and Characteristics are the standardized performance “measurables” that determine an athlete’s physical attributes. They include height, weight, speed, strength, vertical, agility, physicality, intensity, IQ, etc. More traditional training methods rely heavily, and oftentimes solely upon the development of ATCs. But the development of ATCs alone are not indicative of superior sport-related athletic performance. It’s not until we realize how ATCs, METLEs, and MTR-F work together, that we can truly understand how to develop superior athletes.

Combat Logic™ is our data-driven approach to building superior athletes and teams.

ATHLETES.

For athletes, Combat Logic™ objectively quantifies their current versus required ability, then, defines and prescribes the required training needed to produce superior results.

COACHES & TEAMS.

For coaches and teams, Combat Logic™ provides the most comprehensive and effective recruiting, individual + team development, and game-planning tools and technologies imaginable.

• Recruiting: use Combat Logic™ to identify the best possible prospects based on your specific needs/criteria.
• Individual Development: use Combat Logic™ to objectively quantify an athlete’s current versus required ability, then, define and prescribe the required training needed to produce superior results.
• Team Development: use Combat Logic™ to objectively quantify the team’s current versus required ability, then, define and prescribe the required team training/ in-system development needed to produce superior results.
• Game Planning: use Combat Logic™ to understand and exploit your opponents like never before. What’s their overall strategy? What tactics will they use to accomplish it? What are their strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies? How do they call plays? What plays are they going to call? When are they going to call them? How will they adjust? How do they make decisions? What decisions will they make? With Combat Logic™ you’ll know their next move before they do.

COMBAT RATING™

Additionally, we use Combat Logic™️ to identify an athlete’s Combat Rating™️ (CR). With a Combat Rating™, we can assess an athlete’s readiness to compete at any Level of Competition (LOC). And, we can do it far more accurately than any star rating system.

Based on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest possible rating, there are three (3) steps to calculate an athlete’s Combat Rating™️:

1. Determine an athlete’s “Raw” Combat Rating (*CR).
2. Process an athlete’s *CR for FX™ (effects). FX™ are the multitude of in-game pressure-based variables that can enhance and or debilitate an athlete’s performance.
3. Subtract *CR – FX™ to determine an athlete’s true Combat Rating™️ (CR).

With a Combat Rating™ athletes gain a clear understanding of their readiness to make the impact D1 coaches are seeking at the next level. If they’re not quite ready, they’ll have a clear roadmap (ABP™) outlining everything it’s going to take to get there.

Moreover, a Combat Rating™ provides college coaches the power to identify prospective recruits with precision, knowing exactly how their abilities will translate to their in-game performance before the first recruitment letter, questionnaire, or camp invite is even sent. This data-driven approach is far superior to more traditional star rating systems, and revolutionizes the recruitment process, offering a more informed and efficient way to build winning teams.

HOW THE STAR SYSTEM WORKS.

Based on the Star System, high school prospects are rated two stars, three stars, four stars, or five stars. Everyone who provides Star Ratings has their own formulas and opinions for awarding them, but the general idea is:

• A five-star prospect is deemed to be amongst the top 30 players nationally. They are expected to immediately contribute as freshmen regardless of where they sign. That puts them in the top 0.01% of that recruiting class. They are also deemed to have the potential to post incredible college football stats, be named first-team All-American, and ultimately be drafted in the first round of the NFL draft.
• Four-star prospects the rest make up the remaining top 300 or so players nationally. They are also expected to provide an immediate impact on their college teams and have potential for All-American status and professional careers, just not quite as likely as is expected for five-star prospects.
• Three-star prospects are generally viewed as expected to be in the top 10% of incoming college players and are generally thought of being one of the nation’s top 800 or so recruits. They are viewed as having the potential to be one of the best players in their region or in their conference.
• Two-star prospects have proven themselves to be in the top 1% of high school players, but are not expected to make much of an impact on D1 FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) rosters. Typically, their potential is better fit for D1 FCS (Football Championship Subdivision) schools as well as the potential to be star players at NCAA DII, DIII or NAIA schools.

PROBLEMS WITH THE STAR RATING SYSTEM.

The current star rating systems used by recruiting services like 247Sports, Rivals, and ESPN, have faced criticism and challenges over the years. Some of the key issues and limitations with these systems include:

• Subjectivity: Star ratings are often assigned by analysts and scouts, and their assessments can be subjective. Different evaluators may have different criteria for assigning stars, leading to inconsistencies and potential biases in the ratings.
• Limited Evaluation: Evaluators typically focus on a prospect’s high school performance, but this may not fully capture a player’s potential or growth. Factors like late bloomers or players from smaller schools may not receive accurate assessments.
• Overemphasis on Physical Attributes: Star ratings often heavily weigh physical attributes such as size, speed, and strength. This can lead to overlooking players with exceptional skills, football IQ, or work ethic.
• Regional Biases: Some regions or states may receive less attention from recruiting services, leading to talented players being underrated or overlooked.
• Changes Over Time: A player’s performance can change significantly after receiving a star rating. Injuries, coaching changes, and personal development can all impact a player’s trajectory.
• Pressure on Players: High star ratings can create unrealistic expectations and pressure on young athletes, potentially affecting their mental and emotional well-being.
• Transfer Portal Issues: Some players may transfer to other schools if they believe their initial star rating didn’t accurately reflect their abilities, creating instability in college programs.
• Missed Evaluations: Even the most well-respected recruiting services can miss evaluating talented players, leading to sleeper prospects who emerge as stars later in their college careers.
• Lack of Positional Nuance: Star ratings may not account for positional nuances. A 5-star quarterback may have different skills and value than a 5-star offensive lineman, but the rating system treats them the same.
• Pressure on Coaches: College coaches may feel pressure to recruit players with high star ratings, leading to a focus on stars rather than identifying players who best fit their team’s needs.
• Winning: From top-star recruits that don’t pan out, to teams full of them, losing to teams without them… star ratings have never been, nor will they ever be an accurate/ effective means of building a winning team.

COMBAT LOGIC™ + COMBAT RATING™.

Problem solved. In time, the entire sports industry, from college to the pros, will trust Combat Logic™ + Combat Rating™ to help their teams win.

By offering Combat Logic™ and Combat Rating™ directly to parents and athletes now, we are setting the stage for a transformative journey in sports development. As parents and athletes experience the tangible benefits of our technology, they become the early champions, spreading the word about the game-changing insights and advantages it offers. This represents not only a shift in how individuals approach their athletic pursuits but also a revolution in how sports teams and organizations harness data-driven intelligence to win.

FX™ are the positive and negative changes in an athlete’s performance of METLEs and MTR-F resulting from pressure, level of competition, and a variety of other performance-inhibiting variables.

These changes allow us to determine when an athlete will perform, when they won’t perform, how they’ll respond to challenges, and ultimately, the overall impact an athlete will have at a given level of competition. These changes also allow us to streamline development to solve for and or remove FX™.

At Sports University, we recognize 5 Levels Of Competition (LVC).

• LVC-1: DEVELOPMENTAL. Teams at this level of competition will have an average Combat Rating™️ of 1-2.
• LVC-2: LOW. Teams at this level of competition will have an average Combat Rating™️ of 3-4. 
• LVC-3: MEDIUM.  Teams at this level of competition will have an average Combat Rating™️ of 5-6.
• LVC-4: HIGH. Teams at this level of competition will have an average Combat Rating™️ of 7-8.
• LVC-5: MAX. Teams at this level of competition will have an average Combat Rating™️ of 9-10.

CONSIDERATIONS.

• When the LVC is even (Low vs. Low, Medium vs. Medium, etc.), the outcome of the game will more than likely be determined by the quality of coaching.
• When the LVC is not even (Low vs. Medium, high vs. very high, etc.), even with the best coaching staff, the outcome of the game is typically determined by the Team Combat Rating (TCR).
• If Team A has an athlete(s), in a key position, who rates 2 LVCs above any athlete on Team B, Team A, if well coached, may be able to pull the upset. This is only possible because, Team A, possesses an athlete who is considerably better than any other athlete on the field. That and, Team B may lack the required coaching staff.
• A Monster (10) has the potential to change the outcome of any matchup.

UNDERSTANDING THE CR SCALE.

The following scale represents how AODs affect an athlete’s performance, in relationship to their current ability to be considered “good”. Based on this scale, an athlete’s *CR may be considerably higher than their CR™. In instances where an athlete’s *CR is higher than the CR™, in-game FX have debilitated an athlete’s performance. This means that regardless of their *CR, or what they may be capable of in training or at lower levels of competition, they will only be as capable as their CR™ when competing at a Level of Competition above their current rating.

This phenomenon explains why some athletes who are considered “good”:

• Don’t perform as expected in certain games.
• Don’t pan out at the next level.
• Don’t make it as far, or become as successful as all of the hype surrounding them may have suggested.

By understanding this phenomenon, we can further define the required training needed to minimize FX and raise an athlete’s CR in line with their *CR.

THE CR™ SCALE.

1. UNATHLETIC. May possess a few ATCs. However, lacks the LV-1 and LV-2 MTR-F needed to execute any of the required sport/position-specific METLEs. Will display FX when competing at any level of competition, including their own.
2. MOTOR DEFICIT. May possess some ATCs, as well as, some LV-1 MTR-F. However, can only execute less than 25%  of the required sport/position-specific METLEs. Will display FX when competing at any level of competition, including their own.
3. WELL BELOW AVERAGE.  May possess some ATCs, as well as, some LV-1 and LV-2 MTR-F. However, can only execute less than 50% of the required sport/position-specific METLEs. Will display FX when competing at any level of competition above their own.
4. BELOW AVERAGE. May possess several ATCs, as well as, some LV-1 and LV-2 MTR-F. But, lacks the ability to execute more than 75% of the required sport/position-specific METLEs. Will display FX when competing at any level of competition above their own.
5. AVERAGE. Possesses the majority of required ATCs. However, can only coordinate LV-3 MTR-F to the execution of about  50% of the required METLE Combined Functions. Will display FX when competing at any level of competition above their own.
6. ABOVE AVERAGE. Possesses the majority of required ATCs. However, can only coordinate LV-3 MTR-F to the execution of about 75% of the required METLE Combined Functions. Will display FX when competing at any level of competition above their own.
7. WELL ABOVE AVERAGE. Possesses the majority of required ATCs. However, can only coordinate LV-4 MTR-F to the execution of about 50% of the required METLE Combined Functions. Will display FX when competing at any level of competition above their own.
8. TOP-TIER. Possesses the majority of required ATCs. However, can only coordinate LV-4 MTR-F to the execution of about 75% of the required METLE Combined Functions. Will display FX when competing at any level of competition, above their own.
9. ELITE. Possesses most, if not all required ATCs. Can coordinate LV-5 MTR-F to the execution of close to, if not all of the required METLE Combined Functions. Won’t necessarily display any FX when competing against a 10. Just lacks the Intensity and KI required to rate a 10 themselves.
10. MONSTER. Possesses all required ATCs, including the highest levels of Intensity, and KI. Can coordinate LV-5 MTR-F to the execution of all required METLE Combine Functions. Displays no FX at any level of competition.

*Anomaly. An Anomaly is designated by an “A” attached to the Combat Rating. An Anomaly attachment indicates an athlete who may not possess the required ATCs or demonstrate the preferred MTR-F in conjunction with the required METLE and or Combined Functions, but, their ability is on par with the provided Combat Rating™️.

WHY A COMBAT RATING IS IMPORTANT.

Identifying an athlete’s Combat Rating™️, in conjunction with, understanding that there are various Levels of Competition is a crucial factor in development. Because, without this information, training is incapable of specifying exactly what a particular athlete’s needs may be, in relationship to their overall ability to perform. Consequently, hype, conjecture, and other more subjective means would be used to incorrectly diagnose and prescribe training.

This creates an environment in which too much emphasis is placed on ATCs and Team Level Coaching. When in fact, more often than not, the emphasis should be on the specific needs of the individual athlete. Yes, Team Level Coaching does play a tremendous role in an athlete’s development. However, given MTR-F and the time it can take to associate knowledge to task, the Team Level Coach, who has to spend more time training athletes up, as opposed to, installing their system and building the team, is at a significant disadvantage when it comes to competing.

To be competitive at certain levels, coaches simply need better athletes. This becomes all too obvious when you take into account that there are over 350 Division 1 member schools providing opportunities for 192,000 student-athletes to compete in NCAA sports each year. And, each year, over 90% of these member schools are incapable of competing against the remaining 10%. Now, either this means the majority of athletes are just incapable of being good enough to compete at a high enough level of competition, or there is a complete failure of an entire sports training industry to produce the desired result.

Depending on the athletes’ current ability level, developing into a superior athlete can take anywhere from 1-4 years. How fast or slow an athlete can be expected to develop depends on their current ability level for each development category.

• There Are 3 Ability Level Classifications:
  • High (H).
  • Medium (M).
  • Low (L).

• There Are 10 Development Categories:
  • Knowledge.
  • MTR-F.
  • Height.
  • Weight.
  • Strength.
  • Power.
  • Conditioning.
  • Speed.
  • CKI.
  • RTVP.

CATEGORY TIMELINE.

1. KNOWLEDGE.

An athlete’s Knowledge Classification identifies what they know, as well as, the speed at which they can acquire, recite, and begin associating knowledge to task.

• HIGH | DAYS:
  • An athlete with a High Knowledge Classification typically possesses innate knowledge and or the ability to acquire, recite, and associate any knowledge to task quickly.
• MEDIUM | WEEKS:
  • An athlete with a Medium Knowledge Classification may possess innate knowledge but cannot acquire, recite, or begin to associate knowledge to task as quickly.
• LOW | MONTHS:
  • An athlete with a Low Knowledge Classification possesses no innate knowledge and requires much longer to acquire, recite, and begin to associate knowledge to task.

2. MTR-F TIMELINE.

An athlete’s MTR-F Classification identifies their mind and body’s current and or innate ability to coordinate upper and lower body movements required to perform a variety of sport-related position-specific movements and or combined functions.

• HIGH | WEEKS TO MONTHS: Typically athletes who possess a high level of MTR-F are capable of:
  • Mastering LV-2 MTR-F across most tasks in 1-12 weeks.
  • Mastering LV-3 MTR-F across most tasks in 3-12 months.

• MEDIUM | 1-2 YEARS: Typically athletes who possess a medium level of MTR-F are capable of:
  • Mastering LV-2 MTR-F across most tasks in 3 months to 1 year.
  • Mastering LV-3 MTR-F across most tasks in 1-2 years.

• LOW | 3-4 YEARS: Typically athletes who possess a low level of MTR-F are capable of:
  • Mastering LV-2 MTR-F across most tasks in 1-2 years.
  • Mastering LV-3 MTR-F across most tasks in 3-4 years.

3. HEIGHT TIMELINE.

An athlete’s Height Classification identifies their current height in relationship to any height-by-position guidelines that may or may not play a role in their ability to succeed and or be recruited to the next level at that position.

As far as we know, height is genetic and there is no workout or any other means of increasing it. However, there are all kinds of examples across all sports, where athletes regardless of height, solidify their spot at the next level by simply outperforming everyone else who meets the proposed height-by-position guidelines.

4. WEIGHT TIMELINE.

An athlete’s Weight Classification identifies their current weight in relationship to any weight-by-position guidelines that will play a role in their ability to succeed and or be recruited to the next level at that position.

• HIGH | NDR:
  • No development is required. The athlete is already at the optimum weight by position.

• MEDIUM | 1-2 YEARS:
  • Needs to gain 24-48 lbs @ 12-24 lbs per year.

• LOW | 3-4 YEARS:
  • Athlete is significantly underweight.
  • Needs to gain 60+ lbs @ 12-24 lbs per year.

5. STRENGTH TIMELINE.

An athlete’s Strength Classification identifies their current and or innate ability to be as strong as is required to excel at their sport and or position versus what most would consider to be a top athlete at an opposing position.

• HIGH | 0-1 YEAR:

• MEDIUM | 1-2 YEARS:

• LOW | 3-4 YEARS:

6. POWER TIMELINE.

An athlete’s Power Classification identifies an athlete’s current and or innate ability to be as powerful as is required to excel at their sport and or position versus what most would consider to be a top athlete at an opposing position.

• HIGH | 0-1 YEAR:
  • Very few athletes ever possess a high level of upper-body power.
  • When noticed, it’s almost always a result of natural ability.

• MEDIUM | 1-2 YEARS:
  • Most athletes are 1-2 years from reaching their full upper and lower body power potential.

• LOW | 3-4 YEARS.

7. CONDITIONING TIMELINE.

An athlete’s Conditioning Classification identifies their current and or innate level of conditioning.

• HIGH | 2-4 WEEKS:
  • Even an athlete who some might consider to already possess a high level of conditioning could considerably increase their conditioning with our Metabolic Conditioning & Speed Program (MCS™) over a 2-4 week cycle @ 3 days per week.

• MEDIUM | 5-8 WEEKS:
  • Approximately 2 Phases.

• LOW | 9-12 WEEKS:
  • A complete 12-Week Training Cycle.
  • Longer for

8. SPEED TIMELINE.

An athlete’s Speed Classification identifies an athlete’s current and or innate ability to be as fast as is required by their sport and or position.

• HIGH | 0-3 YEARS:
  • For most sports, an athlete with a “High” Speed Classification may not ever really need to focus on speed development. However, when it comes to Track and Field, sprinters with a “High” Speed Classification are just getting started and may spend the next 3+ years developing Elite Level Speed.

• MEDIUM | 1-2 YEARS:
  • To reach a high level, not an Elite Level.

• LOW | 3-4 YEARS.
  • To reach a high level, not an Elite Level.

9. CKI TIMELINE.

An athlete’s CKI Classification identifies their current and or innate ability to demonstrate the required Confidence, Killer Instinct, and Intensity.

• HIGH | 0-1 YEAR:
  • Even though some athletes may have what some people would consider a High Level of Confidence, Killer Instinct, and Intensity, many have yet to master a concept known as Assertion over Aggression. This concept, developed by Neal Saunders, provides that aggression is limited in its effectiveness because it requires a loss of control and emotional activation to manifest. Whereas, assertion dominates through confidence and control without having to alter your emotional state.

• MEDIUM | 1-2 YEARS.

• LOW | 3-4 YEARS.

10. RTVP TIMELINE.

An athlete’s RTVP Classification identifies their current and or innate ability to process and react to the infinite number of real-time visual stimuli presented during gameplay as fast as the game and highest levels of competition demand.

Once athletes possess the required measurables (speed, strength, power, weight, etc), RTVP is what makes one athlete superior to another. It is the most obscure development goal of them all.

• HIGH | 0-1 YEAR:
  • In conjunction with a training program designed to develop RTVP.

• MEDIUM | 1-2 YEARS:
  • In conjunction with a training program designed to develop RTVP.

• LOW | 3-4 YEARS:
  • In conjunction with a training program designed to develop RTVP.

LAUNCHING FALL 2024.

WAR™ is the ultimate live-action athlete gaming, development, and recruiting platform.

Get more info here.

Join the action here.

Create a captivating enough storyline and you can attract anyone’s attention. With WAR™ we’ll be attracting everyone’s.

Get more info here.