Anyone at the ISU "Chalk Talk" today?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve Rogers
  • Start date Start date

WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?

Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.

Register Log in
S

Steve Rogers

Guest
Curious how many of you attended, or knew about. the luncheon at MCL today where Coach Miles, Dahl (volleyball) and True (soccer) spoke about their respective programs.

Of the approximately 30 people in attendance, only about 13 didn't work in ISU athletics or in the ISU foundation. I'm sure many of you would like to have heard Coach Miles' "take" on things.

One interesting topic was the lack of "training table meals" for our athletes and the impact that has on bulking up our kids in all sports. Virtually every "serious" athletic program dictates the quantity and quality of what the kids put in their bodies on a daily basis, including weekends, by use of "training tables." Our kids are forced to eat Taco Bell, and crap like that (no offense) on Sundays for instance because university dining facilities are closed.

The audience was a bit shocked and if you're curious, you're probably looking at least a few hundred thousand bucks a year to have a legit "training table" setup for all the kids.

I don't care how good a coach you are, unless you are given the ammunition, the gun won't work. If the university and its trustees want to be successful, they have to invest wholly. Until that happens, it's going to be very difficult to compete for the best athletes and provide them what they need to be successful.

And keep this in mind, as we are trying to "catch up" with the rest of the conference in terms of facilities, support, wins and athletes, our peers aren't waiting for us to catch up....they are forging ahead and continuing what they are doing. To think that we are somehow going to magically "overtake" the likes of UNI, SIU (or anyone else for that matter) in the very near future is misguided.:meditate::krazy:
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
I am no expert, but I would have to beleive there is a means by which this type of thing could be addressed through Sodexho (catering and meal plans at ISU). It might not be perfect right off the bat, but I would bet there are options available. My experience with football players in the past was that when meals were available such as the brunch on the weekends in the cafeteria were available they didn't go and that was much better options than taco bell. Since they and other students didn't go, these were stopped.

Though I agree that athletes should be taking care of themselves and eating healthy...to suggest that our football team is not winning because they eat taco bell one or two meals a week is pretty weak. It sounds to me like a meal plan should be created by the nutritionists on campus (there is an entire academic program for this) and that the football team simply should be required to follow it. But to say that we only gained 90 yards, or haven't scored in 2 or 3 games has nothing to do with what they are eating. That is ridiculous. I understand this is a very small thing in a big picture. But my experience with ISU tells me one thing, communication is the issue with these "training tables" If it is communicated properly to the proper people, it is very likely that something can happen.
 
Sackalot said:
I am no expert, but I would have to beleive there is a means by which this type of thing could be addressed through Sodexho (catering and meal plans at ISU). It might not be perfect right off the bat, but I would bet there are options available. My experience with football players in the past was that when meals were available such as the brunch on the weekends in the cafeteria were available they didn't go and that was much better options than taco bell. Since they and other students didn't go, these were stopped.

Though I agree that athletes should be taking care of themselves and eating healthy...to suggest that our football team is not winning because they eat taco bell one or two meals a week is pretty weak. It sounds to me like a meal plan should be created by the nutritionists on campus (there is an entire academic program for this) and that the football team simply should be required to follow it. But to say that we only gained 90 yards, or haven't scored in 2 or 3 games has nothing to do with what they are eating. That is ridiculous. I understand this is a very small thing in a big picture. But my experience with ISU tells me one thing, communication is the issue with these "training tables" If it is communicated properly to the proper people, it is very likely that something can happen.
Click to expand...
When I was an undergrad I worked in the Burford, Erickson, Pickerl cafeteria all four years and it was run by the university there was definitely a training table for the athletes during that time. Over the long haul this would make a lot of difference in the development of the players. Sack, nobody was saying that it was the difference in one game, but over the long haul it definitely would make a difference. Over the course of one school year it would make a big difference.
 
Erickson hasn't been a reshall for about 15 years so that does explain your prespective and historically the "training table" concept being at ISU at some point.

I think it could, that is why I suggested it is probably an issue of communicating the needs for this to the right people. But, there are many other small issues which in their entirity add up to big issues. Summer training/August Camp in the past was an issue. Continual issues throughout Terre Haute with fights was an issue for the team, I could go on and on. I mean, does it make a bit of sense that these scholarship athletes don't live together (for the most part) most don't live on campus, those that do live in differing buildings, does it make sense that these scholarship athletes rarely eat together even in the cafeterias (atleast not while I was there), does it make sense that in my experience (Coach Miles might have changed this) but that there is no curfew for football players, all this coupled with the lack of a true weight room/facility to help them train?
I think a training table is a fair idea, but when football players are not required to live on campus, how can it be enforced? I think an actual weight room is a pretty good idea, I think that having a curfew is a great idea, I think that requiring football players to live on campus is a good idea, but all of these are fundamental and athlete specific policies which would have to be changed and then you run into NCAA concerns. For example, a campus cannot have specific "athletics" residence halls (though most do it anyway) designed for athletes or that has a certain percentage of students living there that are not athletes too.

I guess all I am saying is that, this small thing would help, but there are far more things that probably need to be done that quite possibly could have a much larger impact on the team. If you haven't been in a cafeteria at ISU lately, it literally has almost everything to eat you can imagine. They have pizza bars, grills, fajita and taco bars, entree lines, chicken and health food bar, pasta bar, cereal, 8 or more kinds of juice, 4 different types of milk, deserts (even healthy ones) and more. The food that they need to be eating is there, they just need to follow a regimented plan. Which could easily be created and potentially administered in the cafeteria. Weekends is a different story, because the cafeteria closes starting Friday afternoon and the cafeteria for all practical purposes becomes the commons, which is were the Taco Bell point comes in. I can't argue, nor can anyone that these students are forced to eat "fast food" during the weekends. But, there are healthy alternatives at all fast food stores and there are other options as well, that again if the right people are talked to can be worked out to be mutually beneficial to the athletes, Sodexho and the campus.
 
Training tables, etc

When did they end the training table? I know there used to be one - the A. Myers tenure?

As to athletic dorms -- didn't the NCAA put some steep restrictions post-Okla U. QB cocaine-infused shoot-out; circa-1985; height of B. Switzer's reign??

The football dorms had horrible reputations at the football factories.

Believe that's why schools started putting up the team in a hotel AT HOME games for the last 1-2 nights prior to the game; far easier to control, bed checks, keep the nuttiness from student population to a minimum
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
If their were training tables during Andy Myers tenure that might be the only good thing she did.
 
I did talk with a couple people that were at the chalk talk and Coach Miles addressed the lack of offensive production.
 
How did he address it? By acknowledging that it exists, or did he give some idea as to what they might try to do to change things? It's an unfortunate situation, because as much as the coaches might try to do something different, the talent just simply does not exist on that side of the ball to do much about it. They should simplify, and try to get very good at a few things, and go with it.
 
He mention the QB position has struggled, with lack of production early and then the back-up has no experience. He did not go into specifics as to what the game plan was going forward, it was more of an answer to a question about the QB position from what I am told.
 
Thanks. I think many of us have the same question. What was a very promising situation coming in to this season (a D1 transfer that beat Tennessee as a starter coming in to give some stability and talent at the most important position on the field), has turned into a huge question mark. You can't go two years without knowing who your QB is going to be. Unfortunately, last years' "starter" (for a few games, anyway) didn't work out here for whatever reason--turnovers, trouble... He was much more athletically gifted than any QB on the roster now, and has over 1,000 yards of total offense at his current school. I'm not saying he would be the right guy--the coaches make their decisions for the right reasons--it's just to indicate that you do need consistency and athleticism to have success at that position. We just do not have that right now.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
new sycamore fan said:
He was much more athletically gifted than any QB on the roster now, and has over 1,000 yards of total offense at his current school. I'm not saying he would be the right guy--the coaches make their decisions for the right reasons--it's just to indicate that you do need consistency and athleticism to have success at that position. We just do not have that right now.
Click to expand...

Okay I gotta ask... Where is the gifted troubled QB now??
 
the former quarterback....dowdell.....

fumbled every time he ran the ball last season...nobody would even be near him....and he would fumble....plus he had some off field problems last year....he was suspended for awhile....he was a leftover from the low west regime.....oh, i mean lou west...freudian slip...lol.....
 
heard that schmidtke was heading to a california juco...

this year....at least that was what I had heard...dont know if that was true or not....who knows...he might be playing in the same juco league that produced Charlie Sheen's Wild Thing character in "Major League".....California Penal....lol....

IT'S JUST A JOKE. SO CALM DOWN THERE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO GET THEIR FEELINGS HURT.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
The last I heard, Schmidke was headed to a JUCO in California (that seemed destined to happen from Day 1). Dowdell is at Saginaw Valley State, along with Darius Middlebrooks. Tom, I think you were a little harsh with Dowdell. I met him and spoke with him during a recruiting trip--the current coaches were putting him up front at that time as one of the team leaders--and he seemed to be pretty level-headed. Dowdell still has his turnover "issue" (5 int's and 2 fumbles in 4 games), but is still starting and being productive (over 1,000 yds of total offense). I have no idea what the "off the field" issues were that led to his departure, and like I said in my previous post--the coaches make those decisions, and obviously are more well-informed than I. My feeling is that (other than the beginning of the year suspension) his "off-field" issues were probably related to his not taking his demotion very well (just like most kids would probably respond). I just mention it because we continue to have turnover at the position we can least afford to have it at, and he was/is a much superior athlete than what we have currently manning the position. The main reason he lost his job was the lack of offensive production and the turnovers. Are we in better shape now??? Last year at ISU he had 385 total yards in total offense (compared to our 194 total for the 2 current QBs), 3 lost fumbles, and 3 interceptions (compared with 4 lost fumbles and 5 interceptions for the current QBs). Say what you will, I'll continue to say the team would be more productive with someone like him (he is both way more mobile and has a stronger arm than either of our current starters).
 
Last edited:
the "other guy" is always better eh? lol

i thought that he seemed to be a nice kid too....just fumbled too much last year....he led the team in fumbles a year ago and on most of them he wasnt even hit.....that's all i said about him.....

last year people were complaining about him....now they want him back...lol......
 
I know a lot of people were complaining about him, but I wasn't one of them. I also didn't say I wanted him back. The coaches had reasons to let him go. All I was saying is that his production was better than what we are seeing now, and that we need "consistency and athleticism" and "someone like him" (meaning a more athletic QB).

And Tom, you did say a little more than he just fumbled too much ("fumbled every time...", "off-field problems", "suspended..." "holdover from the Low West..". This is why I responded the way I did. I don't feel he was a real negative "holdover", nor did the coaches when they put him on the panel to answer questions from their first recruiting class. You're a good guy and a strong supporter of the program--I also am a strong supporter of the program. I'll leave this topic at that.
 
new sycamore fan said:
I know a lot of people were complaining about him, but I wasn't one of them. I also didn't say I wanted him back. The coaches had reasons to let him go. All I was saying is that his production was better than what we are seeing now, and that we need "consistency and athleticism" and "someone like him" (meaning a more athletic QB).

And Tom, you did say a little more than he just fumbled too much ("fumbled every time...", "off-field problems", "suspended..." "holdover from the Low West..". This is why I responded the way I did. I don't feel he was a real negative "holdover", nor did the coaches when they put him on the panel to answer questions from their first recruiting class. You're a good guy and a strong supporter of the program--I also am a strong supporter of the program. I'll leave this topic at that.
Click to expand...

You are right about this kid.

FYI, dont be surprised if you see a different starter at QB this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top