The backgrounds of strength and conditioning coaches employed by Division I athletic programs are diverse. The diversity of the backgrounds can be described along a multitude of variables including: educational background, professional certifications, physical size and fitness, and competitive playing experiences, to name a few. Though research has not yet addressed this matter directly, it is possible that the background and characteristics of strength and conditioning coaches may bias professional assessment of prospective hires. Determine the presence of biases within a large sample of collegiate strength and conditioning coaches with respect to the relative importance of education, certifications, physical attributes, and playing experience. It is predicted that coaches will have biases that favor the qualities found in a coach that most closely resembles their own personal characteristics. The design of the study utilized electronic mail recruitment of strength and conditioning coaches at all Division I athletic programs. One hundred fifty-six (34 female, 122 male, mean age = 33 years) full-time strength and conditioning coaches at NCAA Division 1 universities responded to the online questionnaire. Items related to education, professional certifications, playing experience, coaching experience, body composition, and importance of background on effectiveness as a professional were included. Analyses utilizing ANOVA and t-tests revealed several significant findings in line with the research hypothesis. Specifically, strength and conditioning coaches possessing CSCS certification indicated this characteristic is more essential than those coaches without that certification (p < 0.05; ES = 1.17). Coaches with degrees in the exercise science field indicated this characteristic is more essential than coaches trained in fields outside of exercise science (p < 0.05; ES = 0.86). Coaches with collegiate playing experience indicated that such experience is more essential than coaches without collegiate playing experience (p < 0.05; ES = 0.59). Lastly, coaches describing themselves as highly muscular indicated that being physically larger was more essential for a coach than those describing themselves as less muscular (p < 0.05; ES = 1.00). These results generally confirm the hypothesis that strength and conditioning professionals generally perceive their personal background to be more essential for effectiveness as a coach than are background characteristics they do not personally possess. While these findings are not surprising given the reality that our life experiences shape our perceptions, this work does confirm the perspective that many strength and conditioning professionals view their path to professional achievement as the most appropriate. This study indicates that aspiring young professionals should be fully aware that the professional opinions provided to them by current strength and conditioning coaches may well be biased. It is expected that biases suggesting that being physically large in stature and having high level athletic experience will be diminished over time as the field evolves and moves away from many existing stereotypes. Aspiring strength and conditioning coaches are encouraged to seek out all available means and all available professional counsel to improve their employment profile and enhance their candidacy for positions within the field.