Derek Perkins, the head coach at Eastern Michigan University, joined 3S after attending the 3S Summer Webinar Series. As it usually happens with first-year users of the 3S platform, Derek had questions and concerns since, after all, he (as many coaches before him) trusted the future of his program, even if only for one season, to a “program” that sounded controversial, looked different from everything typically discussed at ASCA and other coaching conventions, and felt more like a directive process than the flexible coaching environments most coaches are used to.
This story is about the process and the experience the Eastern Michigan University team went through after committing to 3S.
Season Start and 3S Onboarding Practices
As with any process-driven system (and the 3S platform is built around the Training Optimization Process grounded in the Ergometric Training Concept), making the initial settings and following the process logic are extremely important first steps. 3S offers onboarding and setup support, but the decision to use it depends entirely on the coach.
From the 3S perspective, we view this support not as a burden, but rather as an opportunity to help coaches establish a proper starting point for the process. This is also a sensitive period because, when coaches first sign up with 3S, the true nature of the system is not always immediately clear.
Many new coaches initially view 3S “just as software” and naturally treat our recommendations accordingly. In Derek’s case (and to his credit), attendance at prior 3S webinars and communication with other attending coaches — many of whom were repeat users — helped him realize that 3S was not simply software, but represented something much larger and structurally different.
This realization is important because it defines the format of future relations with 3S. Similarly, we view coaches subscribed to 3S not as “software users,” but as training process partners, in a way similar to how experienced coaches treat their top athletes. From our observations and experience, relationships with success-driven coaches often evolve into highly collaborative partnerships focused on progression, adaptation, and refinement of the training process itself.
Methodological Side Notes
At this point, I need to clarify how we define 3S itself:
3S is a training methodology framework built on the Ergometric Training Concept (ETC), a new paradigm for organizing and managing the training process, and implemented through the 3S training process management platform.
The key element in this definition is “training methodology.” The development and organization of the training process has always been the primary specialization behind 3S. While the platform provides the technological environment required to manage complex training structures, the true foundation of the system lies in the methodology, organizational principles, and accumulated knowledge driving the process itself.
The platform itself became necessary because the organizational complexity of the methodology exceeded the limits of traditional manual management. Unlike earlier training paradigms, whose structurally limited organizational models could be managed through simplified classifications and static planning structures, the ETC paradigm is built around interconnected relationships, transitional characteristics, and dynamic adaptation management across time. Under these conditions, technology becomes not simply a convenience, but an operational necessity required to manage the process correctly.
Since 3S provides process management designs and tools, but does not receive direct physiological feedback from athletes on the deck every day, communication with coaches becomes an important partnership element. From our perspective, given our own high-performance consulting background, these relationships are natural — especially during the onboarding period.
Returning to Derek’s experience, I was very grateful for his initial contact and the continuous (and often very deep) questions he was asking throughout the process.
A month later, I had an opportunity to visit Derek at EMU and discuss his first experiences working with 3S. Derek felt confident and assured that he was moving in the right direction, even if it was still too early to evaluate the progression itself.
From a coaching perspective, Derek’s observations during that early adaptation period were not focused solely on performance progression, but rather on the growing clarity of the training process itself. Derek gradually realized that the structure of the 3S system helped organize decision-making, clarify progression logic, and connect training objectives with daily execution. Instead of relying on fragmented interpretations of intensity and fatigue management, the process itself became increasingly coherent and manageable.
Mid-Season Progression. First Check Point
The first major test of the 3S methodology came at the mid-season championship meet in November.
Most collegiate programs using 3S follow the Cascade Season Planning Strategy, which is designed around changing and strengthening the swimmers’ preparedness structure while progressively building “special fitness” toward the championship phase of the season.
Under these conditions, results after the first cascade cycle are usually solid and encouraging, often approaching previous best performances, but not necessarily producing fully peaked or extremely fast swims. This is intentional and reflects the progression strategy we recommend based on the realities of the collegiate season.
The report received from Coach Perkins was both encouraging and important:
“53 season-best swims and 25 lifetime bests — and we’re only halfway through the season.”
At that stage, we felt Derek was clearly moving in the right direction. The only concern we discussed was whether the progression strategy might be slightly too aggressive, potentially creating adaptation saturation later in the season, approaching the conference championships. We discussed this possibility with Derek, but he remained confident that the progression and training loads were appropriate and did not require additional intervention or adjustment.
Championship Week — The Real Test
The final test of Derek’s decision to commit to 3S came at the MAC Conference Championships.
One week before the championship meet, Derek wrote:
“We are READY. I’ve taken everything in my first year using the 3S system, taken your guidance, coaches advice, and they are ready to race. Thank you for helping me navigate last week. We did a lot of individualization last week to put athletes in a good frame of mind. I know it will not be perfect next week, but I’m excited to see how all the opportunities unfold for our girls.”
For me personally, this was probably the most important moment of the entire season.
At that point, all necessary work had already been completed, but the results were still unknown. Like every coach approaching an important competition, I was left with the same thoughts and emotions: had we interpreted the process correctly, managed the progression properly, and prepared the athletes to perform at their best when it mattered most?
At that stage, all we could do was wait for the meet to begin.
Final Season Results
On March 3, Derek’s message arrived:
“The girls did it!”
Eastern Michigan University delivered one of the strongest championship performances in recent program history:
- 6th overall at the MAC Championships — the exact team goal established at the beginning of the season
- 29 lifetime best performances at MACs
- 83 lifetime best performances for the season — a new program record under Coach Perkins
- 9 A-Finalists at MACs compared to just 1 A-Finalist the previous year
- The 200 Freestyle Relay missed the school record by only 0.05 seconds
- A returning roster positioning the program for a potential Top-4 finish the following season
Derek later summarized his experience with the following words:
“You have given me confidence and clarity in my planning and coaching.”
For us, this statement may represent one of the most important outcomes of the entire process.
Summary. The Lessons we Can Take from This Story
The most important lesson from Derek Perkins’ first year with 3S is not simply the final statistics, but the process that led to them.
The success of Eastern Michigan University during the 2025–2026 season was not accidental, nor was it the result of software operating independently of the coach. The results reflected Derek’s ability to manage the process, communicate with his athletes, individualize when necessary, and guide the team through the progression structure with confidence and discipline.
3S exists for coaches like Derek — and because of them.
From our perspective, the platform was never intended to replace the coach. It was created to help coaches organize and manage the training process more effectively, improve decision-making, and guide athletes toward successful outcomes with greater clarity and confidence.
3S was never designed to create identical coaches or replace coaching identity. Different coaches, personalities, environments, and team cultures naturally produce different applications of the process.
What makes Derek’s experience especially valuable is not that it was extraordinary, but that the process was documented, observable, and repeatable.
Looking back at Derek’s first season with 3S, one additional factor deserves recognition: trust in the process itself. Like many coaches entering a new methodological environment, Derek faced uncertainty throughout different stages of the season. However, instead of reacting emotionally to isolated moments or prematurely changing the progression structure, he remained committed to the organizational logic of the process, continued communication, and allowed the adaptation strategy to unfold over time. In systems built around interconnected progression management, this type of trust and consistency often becomes an important condition for successful long-term outcomes.
Derek’s story is only one example of how different coaches apply 3S within their own environments, coaching styles, and team cultures to guide athletes toward successful outcomes.
See how other coaches and athletes applied 3S: