The Scarlet Fred Report: Game 3, Rutgers 23, USF 13

Note: This is an idea for a series of blog posts I've been thinking about doing for a while now.  I'm not sure there are many useful Web resources for fans of Rutgers football at the present time, mainly because... well, it's Rutgers football, so maybe the audience isn't that huge.  But as an RU alum who occasionally blogs about other things, and a season ticket holder of four (!!) years now, I feel wholly qualified to share some random thoughts about college football as a direct result of watching TV in my living room.

Huge win for the Scarlet Knights on Thursday, defeating a solid Top 30 USF team, on the road, in a game televised by ESPN to a national audience.  I was legitimately concerned for this game before it began; after two incredibly dispirited and mediocre performances against FCS Howard and should-be-FCS Tulane under our belts, there was a distinct possibility that USF would completely overpower us.  I was particularly concerned with regard to the disparity between their seemingly high-flying offense and ours, which over the first two games of the season performed like... well, a 1970's Chevy Nova. 

Historically, Rutgers does play well against USF, but I've been generally willing to throw historical comparisons out the window this season since so much of the Scarlet Knights' coaching staff has changed (for better or for worse).  Here are some random thoughts from throughout the game:

• I was surprised to see a Las Vegas spread consensus of USF -7 to -7.5 today.  I realize that home field alone is typically worth four points, but as a general rule spreads should be tightened up when the underdog possesses a solid defense (and I think we knew that about Rutgers from the outset).  I don't bet on sports, but a betting man could have easily taken Rutgers to beat that spread in this game, assuming that either a win or a close loss was in order.
• Heard Schiano was at the game tonight, but he must have done a nice job hiding himself, since I didn't notice ESPN's cameras catching him at all.  (I did miss the first quarter entirely, and listened to most of the second quarter on the radio, due to work obligations - so maybe I just missed him.)  Either way, it's pretty cool that he was there.
• New Coach Kyle Flood really does maintain a calmer demeanor during the game than Schiano did, right?  He also delivered a fantastic interview to ESPN's sideline reporter at the half.
• Driving to the Hillsborough, NJ, Five Guys to pick up a "wife's out with friends and I'm about to watch football" dinner, I was listening to the USF radio feed on XM satellite radio.  This was my first sign that Rutgers could have been in for an auspicious night; USF's analysts - who seemed reasonable enough if a bit homer-ish - were talking about Rutgers (both offensively and defensively) as if they were just waiting to destroy an objectively inferior USF team.  On the radio, I listened to a few of Nova's second quarter third-and-long conversions.  It was pretty clear just from listening to USF's radio guys that our WRs had too much height and physicality for USF's secondary, and that over the course of a 60 minute game, those differences would be too much for USF to handle.
• The established Rutgers blogs that do exist were about ready to impeach new offensive coordinator Dave "Chestnut Hill" Brock before this game for his plain vanilla play calling; I wonder if they will change their tune on Friday? 
• That being said, I'm still surprised that the vertical game went so well for Rutgers tonight (and frankly, it could have been even better, if not for a few drops that could - not should, but could - have been caught, as well as the ill-advised HB option throw in the 3rd quarter).  Going into the season, the WR position was considered tall but inconsistent and certainly prone to the dropsies.  Tonight should be a huge confidence boost for these guys in particular, because everyone (especially Tim Wright and the oft-maligned D.C. Jefferson) looked solid.
• Not much to say about the running game except that I will now be surprised when Jawan Jamison does not run for 100 yards.  He did yeoman work on Thursday night, running the ball a ridiculous 41 times (for 151 yards, a 3.7 average which looked much better than the average).  Good thing they don't have pitch counts for collegiate running backs.  I realize our offensive line is much improved over the past two seasons, but Jamison showed some really wonderful vision tonight - and the spin move on the game-sealing TD run was positively Marshawn Lynch-like.  
• I am still not 100% sold that Gary Nova was the correct choice to command the Rutgers offense this season, but that said, he played very well tonight.  Did my ears deceive me, or at one point did ESPN analyst Jesse Palmer state that when Nova sets his feet in the pocket, "he throws like Tom Brady?"  Interesting comparison - his clutch third down calmness reminded me more of a pre-2007 Eli Manning, though.  It seems like some QBs pay more attention and perform better on high stakes plays, and pre-Super Bowl 42 Eli was like that at times.  (Or it could just be inconsistency and jitters for both guys; the fact that Nova stays locked in on one down out of three, on average, was enough to beat a good team tonight, which could augur good news for the future.)
• Previous jape toward Jesse Palmer aside, I always enjoy ESPN's Thursday night college football announcing team.  They aren't the most knowledgeable team around, but those guys do seem to have a good time in the booth, which automatically makes them better than 60% of announcers (100% of those named Joe Buck).
• The defense spoke for itself with another dominating performance, this time against an offense notably more diverse/talented than Howard or Tulane.  B.J. Daniels is a grown man with years of college experience, and a chip on his shoulder about playing Rutgers to boot; he was mostly kept in check on the ground, and absolutely kept in check in the air (15/33, 0 TD, 3 INT).  Overall, our new defensive coordinator Robb "Young Wolf" Smith gets another A+ for game prep and play calling, mainly because he routinely blitzed but almost never paid the price (except for on two plays, the Hail Mary type throw early in the game, and the tip drill 50-yard completion to the 1 yard line in the second half).
• CB Logan Ryan had an overall sick game, after looking a little exposed against Howard and Tulane.
• The pass rush, which consists of at least 8-9 guys so I won't name them all, did a great job of confusing Daniels and the O-Line with different blitzes - including a fair number of CB blitzes, which we obviously didn't see much of in the first two games of the season, but worked well enough to flush Daniels out of the pocket (where he uncharacteristically brokered a throw-first, run-second approach for most of the game).
• Special teams obviously needs to improve, with a botched hold costing us three points and a couple of terrible punts costing us field position (luckily our D was able to compensate for the punts).  I believe there was a botched punt return by Mason Robinson as well, but I didn't see it - if that happened, that's another issue, because sixth-year seniors shouldn't be making concentration errors at all.  
• The new freshman kicker (who shares a hometown with both Tim Tebow and Scarlet Fred; how about that) did hit a long bomb 52-yard field goal at the end of the first half, though, which stands in stark contrast to RU's hesitance to let San San Te kick from far beyond 40.  Might this be the first time since I was in college that Rutgers had a placekicker to write home about?  And why do I even care?

In a notable understatement, I am really excited for next Saturday at Arkansas.  The Razorbacks will likely be 1-2 at that point, but one of those losses will be to #1 Alabama (the other, unfortunately for us, will be to perennial powerhouse UL-Monroe, who - and I watched that whole game - would have easily beaten ANY team in the Big East last weekend when they beat Arkansas in OT).  But given the extent to which even the mediocre SEC teams are held to high esteem, back-to-back wins against USF and Arkansas would have to put RU at least in the conversation for the Top 25 (Top 30, at the very least) going into a late September bye. 

Realistically, RU may not beat Arkansas (my opinion is they will, but that's just my opinion).  Even if they do not, the team has to be taken seriously as a Big East contender right now (if only for their stifling defense).  If this team's D continues to dominate good college offenses they way they did tonight, even replacement level offensive production would be enough to win most of the games on our schedule.  I think a truer test for our D than even Arkansas will be Syracuse on Oct. 13; they've had the best offensive performance thus far in the Big East (small sample size note applies), even though they've been playing just a torturous out-of-conference schedule this year. 

Diners, Drive-Ins and Divebombing Expectations for Food TV

I recall an apartment party I attended years ago where I sat on a couch and watched Food Network's "Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives" late on a Friday evening.  Earlier that night, I had become drunk on heated absinthe, and later had imbibed a liberal amount of the hosts' (expensive) marijuana.  I was eating chips and hot salsa - or maybe it was homemade popcorn - by the handful.  I think maybe I brought some store-bought chocolate chip cookies to this event.  I do make a wonderful house guest, don't I?

With the exception of my wife, I had met everyone around me just a few hours before.  This mattered not at all; spurred by what was on television, I had entered the arena of food hedonism, and was truly in a happy place.  And though I've tried mightily to chase that dragon in the years since, it was the only time in my life I have ever enjoyed watching "Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives".

******************************

I am absolutely not against the glamorization of crappy food on TV.  Many people learn to cook healthy food each day by first learning to cook what they like (I certainly progressed that way), and even that aside, crappy food is a wonderful indulgence that everyone should enjoy from time to time.  What some people call "food porn" is a legitimate genre, but it needs to be well executed in order to work. "Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives" seems to be the opposite of well executed; it is the type of food porn that is filmed in low-rate motels outside Tampa.  You can watch, sure, but it's like watching a train wreck, and you feel really terrible afterward for having watched it.

To me, the show doesn't really focus on cooking.  Nor does it focus on location, or ambiance, or restaurant history, or anything even remotely relevant to the act of deciding to leave your house and go someplace else to eat dinner.  It seems to exist entirely in a narcissistic hell space devoted to host Guy Fieri's misplaced insistence that he is both funny and capable of carrying on a normal human conversation.

But with the possible exception of New York Yankees commentator Michael Kay (who also, somehow, has managed to earn an interview-style show on TV), Fieri is the most socially awkward man on television.  He seems to lack all creative vision and all artistic ingenuity above and beyond that of a sexually frustrated seventh grader.  Whatever fourth wall ever existed between shitty food and banal conversation is destroyed by his mentally challenged attempts at junior varsity jock humor-slash-"banter" with restaurant owners and chefs.  (NOTE: I've spent a few summers working in restaurants, and I know that the back of house is not a place for mature humor or for delicate sensibilities.  But the least interesting person I ever worked with at a suburban Pizza Hut is a more engaging character than Guy Fieri.)  There is no easier joke than a dick joke, and as a result, the dick joke needs to be executed well in order to actually be funny - someone needs to tell this guy that not every joke should be a terrible and sophomoric dick joke.

Somewhere in the kernel of "Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives" is a show that I would find legitimately interesting.  The show could focus on regions or themes of food, for instance (like Travel Channel's criminally underrated "Adam Richman's Best Sandwich in America", which is hosted by a much funnier and significantly more interesting personality, far more elegant in executing the aforementioned dick joke).  Something of a focus for what a particular restaurant signifiies to a community, or to a type of people within a community, would also improve the show.  To be fair, the show does spend some time profiling the restauranteurs and chefs for each restaurant, but these profiles are shallow and seemingly pointless.  Segments and episodes are not interlinked, even when obvious connections exist.

The star of "Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives" should be the food, but it does not seem that the food is intended to outshine the host.  Each restaurant has its own flair, and I am convinced that a story could be told about each that is both serious and lighthearted.  But this would have to be left to a more talented host and production team on some other galaxy, because dishes are explained in ways that disrespect the audience, implying strongly that no one watching the show at home would ever want to try to copy them.  When food is tasted, the imbecile host Fieri describes them in a way that you'd sort of have to be both drunk and high in order to understand.  And frankly, I don't believe he even enjoys half of the stuff that he tries.

**************************************

There are people out there who love the show (it's been playing for over six years and two hundred episodes), and some of these people would tell you they are pretty damned serious about food.  But they want their high culture food to remain high culture, and their low culture food to remain low culture.  I guess I'm the high-falutin' guy who does not get this; I want even my low culture guilty indulgences to mean something. 

I love the chain burger restaurant Five Guys, for instance.  Their burgers are delicious and the "small" french fries includes an additional metric ton of fried potato slices, scooped indiscriminately into a paper bag.  But I love the place as a business story, as well - Five Guys is a model in devoting resources to high quality ingredients, independent of cost, as well as an owner-centric franchising plan.  Additionally, I love the ritual of going to Five Guys.  You place an order, and you wait.  You wait a damned long time, munch a few peanuts, and read the self-promotional articles on the walls (NOTE: Did you know that Five Guys was Washingtonian Magazine's #1 Best Burger for seven years in a row?!).  Then you finally get your paper bag of junk food and grease, go home, crack open an ice cold beer or six and watch some sporting event, wallowing in your own indulgence.

To that end, Five Guys isn't just food for me, it's an exercise in self-actualization and a part of my own existential being.  It's a big part of who I think I am, it's fucking analysis, and I think it might help explain why I believe "Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives" is, in contrast, so incredibly stupid.

It's probably because the show would fit better on MTV's slate of crappy reality programs than the Food Network.  The show advocates the absence of thinking, replaced with pure gluttony - eating while only caring superficially about taste and basically just shoving crap down your gullet (and whether some cole slaw happened to drip down someone's face while eating, ahem, giggity).  It is, now that I think of it, probably no coincidence that Triple-D marathons are commonplace on overnight Fridays and Saturdays on Food Network.  It is the Taco Bell of food television; potentially enjoyable in the moment, but not worth the long term repercussions.  It is universally regarded as terrible, and yet some people still unabashedly adore it.  (I'd throw in White Castle as an analogy instead, but White Castle-as-drunk-cuisine kind of rules.)

But can't we all agree that if we all stop watching the show, the network will cancel it?  Can't we all agree, on just this one thing?