Cade takes the OL to chop house (premier steakhouse in AA)

Submitted by Indonacious on October 14th, 2021 at 7:06 AM

“Thank you to @TheChopHouseAA for allowing me to treat the boys that protect me to a phenomenal meal”.

From the picture, looks like Cade took 9 of the OL out to chophouse. Strong work. I’m assuming NIL helped pick up that tab!

More good vibes from bye week and evidence Cade has a knack for being a leader/well liked by the team.

https://twitter.com/cademac_12/status/1448477112671821834?s=21

Mjoeblue86

October 14th, 2021 at 8:26 PM ^

Here's some unsolicited advice gathered from my decades-long career as a chef working in the presence of some fantastically talented, Michelin-starred gourmands:

It's likely not intentional. It's rare (LOL) that a diner refuses an overcooked steak. When it happens, the steak usually ends up as dinner for the executive chef, bartender, or floor manager. No biggie, really. Weighing that against the potential nightmare of throwing every steak you cook back on the grill because you're intentionally undercooking them? That's a recipe for a backed-up kitchen. Maybe it happens somewhere, but it's not common practice.

Also, it's perfectly acceptable to order a fatty steak medium. The extra time lets that fat melt and get all groovy with the meat. Leaner cuts like filet mignon, sure, order that baby rare.

But really, if you're going to spend over a hundred dollars on dinner for yourself, why not try something different? Any schmo with a meat thermometer can cook a steak (no offense to any schmos out there). Try going somewhere that impresses some new knowledge and technique on you, you know? The best meals I've had were the novel experiences! There's a whole world of amazing haute cuisine in this crazy world and it's frustrating as a chef (not really, but kind of) to watch potential customers stream into the same old steakhouses and Italian restaurants because society tells them "THIS IS FINE DINING".

Mjoeblue86

October 14th, 2021 at 8:26 PM ^

Here's some unsolicited advice gathered from my decades-long career as a chef working in the presence of some fantastically talented, Michelin-starred gourmands:

It's likely not intentional. It's rare (LOL) that a diner refuses an overcooked steak. When it happens, the steak usually ends up as dinner for the executive chef, bartender, or floor manager. No biggie, really. Weighing that against the potential nightmare of throwing every steak you cook back on the grill because you're intentionally undercooking them? That's a recipe for a backed-up kitchen. Maybe it happens somewhere, but it's not common practice.

Also, it's perfectly acceptable to order a fatty steak medium. The extra time lets that fat melt and get all groovy with the meat. Leaner cuts like filet mignon, sure, order that baby rare.

But really, if you're going to spend over a hundred dollars on dinner for yourself, why not try something different? Any schmo with a meat thermometer can cook a steak (no offense to any schmos out there). Try going somewhere that impresses some new knowledge and technique on you, you know? The best meals I've had were the novel experiences! There's a whole world of amazing haute cuisine in this crazy world and it's frustrating as a chef (not really, but kind of) to watch potential customers stream into the same old steakhouses and Italian restaurants because society tells them "THIS IS FINE DINING".

JHumich

October 14th, 2021 at 7:56 AM ^

Rumor is Cade messed up the order because he's not great at reading menu options, and they steered him away from the tall sundae desserts due to doubts about his accuracy going in deep with the spoon.

There was some question about whose fault it was when they were just about to go in for the first time, but they missed their table after a guard stepped on his foot. 

WestQuad

October 14th, 2021 at 7:19 AM ^

NIL is sort of crazy.  Tattoo shops could pay OSU players in tattoos just for appearing in the shop and it would be perfectly legal.  There is zero reason not to go to the school that will pay you the most and has the biggest players-get-swag culture. (See Memphis in basketball.)

njvictor

October 14th, 2021 at 9:48 AM ^

There is zero reason not to go to the school that will pay you the most and has the biggest players-get-swag culture. (See Memphis in basketball.)

If you care about winning and getting in the tourney (which will likely net you the biggest NIL deals) then yeah, there is reason not to

crg

October 14th, 2021 at 1:21 PM ^

I hate how so many people are in favor of these NIL deals... as though it has magically become perfectly acceptable now and no longer unethical at all (despite it being wrong for the better part of the last century).  Just because something is now technically legal, it doesn't make it right.

DetroitBlue

October 14th, 2021 at 2:21 PM ^

First of all, it was never ‘illegal’. It was against ncaa rules, but ncaa rules are not law. Secondly, just because something is illegal, doesn’t make it wrong. It might be against the law, but there have been all sorts of unjust, unethical and ‘wrong’ laws throughout history. 

crg

October 14th, 2021 at 5:30 PM ^

1)  Illegal can refer to any rules, not necessarily US criminal code (e.g. an "illegal snap" is also not against the law).

2) True - just because something is illegal it is not necessarily "wrong", but just because something is legal does not mean it is "right" either.

Let's not debate semantics and legalisms here (which is how the courts got involved in the first place).  Let's discuss actual *intent* with this rule... these various rules were put in place to keep academics as the priority and not allow "revenue" college sports to be a pay-to-play scenario (which is exactly what this NIL is truly doing, just in a back door fashion... especially when we see kids getting near $1M "endorsement" deals before even playing a single official down in college).  Yet look at what is happening with only being a few months into this new policy and *be honest* about where this ultimately goes... with none of it actually encouraging the student athletes to place their studies above their after-school activity.  It's all perfectly legal and also very disingenuous to the *purpose* of those schools.

DetroitBlue

October 14th, 2021 at 8:42 PM ^

 The rules most certainly were not put in place to preserve academic integrity; they were put in place so schools, admins, coaches and douchebags like Jim Delaney can make 7-figure salaries on the backs of unpaid student athletes. If you truly believe otherwise, you must be constantly falling for Nigerian Prince email scams. 
 

Beyond that, the idea that accepting money somehow means you don’t give a shit about school is kind of silly too. You act like up until last year football players at Alabama, Georgia and OSU were spending all their free time hitting the books, and now they’ll do nothing but run routes and lift weights, and that is . . . Completely detached from reality. 

TrueBlue2003

October 14th, 2021 at 2:33 PM ^

Wait, wait, wait.  What is unethical about this?  The restaurant gets valuable publicity worth well over the cost of the meal they just comped.  The players get a free meal in exchange for the value they brought to the restaurant.  It's a beautiful win-win for capitalism.

That's more unethical than limiting the ways these players can benefit from the hard work they do while others get rich off them?  Cmon man.

crg

October 14th, 2021 at 5:43 PM ^

It's not a question of free-market (of which I fully embrace, BTW and you misrepresent in your argument).  It is a question of conflict of interest and the conditions of playing a *school sport*.

Think of it this way: in today's free-market employment environment, employers can place numerous requirements and restrictions upon their staff which can extend far beyond their immediate job functions (e.g. vaccine mandates, smoking cessation, body weight requirements, social media, narcotics use, criminal arrests, public statements/behaviors... the list goes on).  Why should an employer not be able to say: "if you want to work here, you must abstain from taking money from such and such sources"?  In fact, there are already numerous situations where companies *do* enforce those policies when the actual behavior is still technically legal... no laws may have actually been broken, yet the employer is within their right to discipline/terminate (again - free market employment).  Now consider the case of a college student (who is *not* an employee).  We already know that college students are not given the same rights as employees (look how easily students can be dismissed for nebulous "code of conduct" issues, just as one example).  Therefore why, when a student is *having tuition waived* and *getting a stipend* and *getting all the various other perks/benefits associated with revenue sport programs*, should the school not be able to place conditions on that *optional and privileged offer not available to the overwhelming majority of the student body* - which may or may not include "don't take outside money"?

MGoStrength

October 14th, 2021 at 7:31 AM ^

Cool to see that & good for Cade.  I can't help but notice something however.  Is it just me or do we seriously lack diversity in that group, not just racially, but culturally?  Everyone looks like they come from the same background.  I wonder if it's like that at some of the elite programs like OSU, Clemson, Bama, etc.

MGoStrength

October 14th, 2021 at 11:14 AM ^

Constantly evaluating the worth of 18-22 year olds based on recruiting rankings mainly developed when they are 16-17

Aren't recruiting rankings designed to rank the players in order of how good they are?  And, aren't they correlated highly with college playing success and NFL potential?  It seems like using recruiting rankings is a good way to judge football players.  That has nothing to do with their worth as humans.  Thinking referencing recruiting rankings to judge the potential of a football player is the same as judging their worth as a human is nonsense and thinking I'm doing that is also nonsense.

and now this?  Seriously?  

You should know the difference between saying what someone looks like and making a judgement on who they are as a person.  There are good and bad people from all walks of life and pointing out their appearance is not the same as indicating the kind of people they are.

Michael Scarn

October 14th, 2021 at 1:38 PM ^

But what are you even judging?  There's too many white kids on one unit of the team?  Too many rich kids - that you assume are rich because they dressed up a little bit to go to a nice steakhouse (likely for free)?

What would an acceptable level of cultural diversity look like to you?  Does the defense, with a majority of its starters being black, lack cultural diversity?

Genuinely curious what baseline/expectation you are comparing a picture of a dozen football players to.

MGoStrength

October 15th, 2021 at 1:03 PM ^

But what are you even judging?  There's too many white kids on one unit of the team?  Too many rich kids - that you assume are rich because they dressed up a little bit to go to a nice steakhouse (likely for free)?

I'm not judging.  LeCheezus thinks I am, but I'm not.  I am merely making an observation

What would an acceptable level of cultural diversity look like to you?  Does the defense, with a majority of its starters being black, lack cultural diversity?

I'm not sure, which is why I asked the question.  I am curious what other program's offensive lineman and QBs would look like if say CJ Stroud or Bryce Young took his lineman out to dinner. 

Genuinely curious what baseline/expectation you are comparing a picture of a dozen football players to.

Yeah again, I'm really not sure.  I was just struck by how similar they all appear.  That could be a good thing.  We've heard lots of talk of the chemistry of this team.  I was just surprised that if you see them all out on the street how much commonality they have.

LeCheezus

October 14th, 2021 at 4:03 PM ^

I don't know what tangent you went off on for the better part of two paragraphs, but I've discussed recruiting rankings with you before, and you generally argue from the point that they are quantitative, i.e. someone ranked 50 should be way better than someone ranked 150, and you seem surprised or blame the coaching staff when it doesn't work out that way.  Is it generally unrelated to your post? Yeah it is, and I probably should have stayed on topic.

Your post was terrible, take your L.  Defending it is making you look worse.

MGoStrength

October 15th, 2021 at 1:11 PM ^

Your post was terrible, take your L.  Defending it is making you look worse.

You should know the difference between saying what someone looks like and making a judgement on who they are as a person.  Shame on you for assuming that because I'm pointing their ethnic and cultural backgrounds that it somehow implies a judgement on their character.  

Laser Wolf

October 14th, 2021 at 8:07 AM ^

Looks like you have:

  • Reece Atteberry - from Colorado
  • Ryan Hayes - from Michigan
  • Karsen Barnhart - from Michigan
  • Zak Zinter - from Massachusetts
  • Andrew Vastardis - from Virginia
  • Trevor Keegan - from Illinois
  • Cade McNamara - from Nevada
  • Chuck Filiaga - from Texas (transplant from California; Samoan heritage)
  • Andrew Stueber - from Connecticut
  • Trente Jones - from Georgia

That group is all over the place geographically and the high schools they went to and towns they grew up in are all over the place socioeconomically. I'm willing to bet their upbringings were very different across the group.

MGoStrength

October 14th, 2021 at 11:03 AM ^

That group is all over the place geographically and the high schools they went to and towns they grew up in are all over the place socioeconomically. I'm willing to bet their upbringings were very different across the group.

And yet you see lots of similarities in their appearance.