This chapter starts with an exploration of the degrees of precision with which scholars in physical education and sport pedagogy field refer to “Models-based Practice” (MbP). We argue that the majority prefer plurality, i.e. models, even when referring to only one model. As such, and in keeping with Casey, we argue that, strictly speaking, MbP as we define it here does not yet exist. That being said, we also reason that MbP is both possible and preferable to the multi-activity, sport technique-based approach to physical education that currently dominates internationally. In arguing for a MbP approach to physical education we firstly recognise that pedagogical models are the basic unit of the approach. Secondly, we accept that for MbP we need multiple pedagogical models to be used. Finally, we draw on the notion of practice architectures to suggest that every model has its own sayings, doings and relatings, all of which lend a distinctiveness to the model’s main idea (a model’s main purpose and character), its critical elements (a model’s essential features) and its learning aspirations (our hopes for student learning). That is, each model has its own signature practice architectures. We conclude by suggesting that everything in MbP is malleable since every interaction of curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment is unique. There are spaces for manoeuvre inherent in MbP and transformation of some aspects of pedagogical models in the process of implementation is inevitable and desirable. If we agree with Stenhouse that classrooms can be thought of as laboratories and teachers as researchers, then any pedagogical model is a possibility for practice. These arguments have significant implications for the understanding of how MbP might be realised in the future.