header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Rankings ... ugh

 (Read 84338 times)

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25484
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #588 on: July 07, 2023, 12:50:44 PM »
Probably terrible?

Dried out to the extreme most likely as all of the fat would be gone. You'd have well-done meat crumbs. Which might be good to sprinkle on... nothing?
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12310
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #589 on: July 07, 2023, 02:22:30 PM »
I agree it would be terrible, but for the opposite reason. 

With such a gentle heat you could stop the cooking process with pretty even doneness across the entire patty. 

But you'd get NO sear, and it won't be on there long enough to develop a bark. So some of the key aspects to the flavor of a burger, caused by the Maillard reaction, wouldn't be there.  

Now, what you COULD do is smoke it low & slow to a temperature short of target, then sear. I.e. reverse sear. That would actually be decent for larger burgers. 

Serious Eats has a sous vide burger recipe as well that's put in the sous vide and then seared to finish. They explicitly say that it's really only good for larger burgers: https://www.seriouseats.com/sous-vide-burgers-recipe

But just on BBQ, low and slow, with no other prep? Aww hell naw...

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25484
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #590 on: July 07, 2023, 02:29:09 PM »
I guess it depends on how long you left it on there. Either way.. no.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

GopherRock

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #591 on: July 07, 2023, 02:42:54 PM »
I think you're describing the manufacturing process of hockey pucks.

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7877
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #592 on: July 07, 2023, 07:07:17 PM »
I’ve had a couple decent burgers with guac and some pepper jack. Not a bad vibe when done right.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #593 on: July 09, 2023, 11:16:00 AM »
May be an image of text
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Honestbuckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5816
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #594 on: July 09, 2023, 11:17:21 AM »
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
-Mark Twain

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #595 on: July 09, 2023, 11:55:36 AM »
just don't put it on your burger
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."


FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #597 on: July 09, 2023, 04:02:19 PM »
ranked by the cost to attend?
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72152
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #598 on: July 09, 2023, 04:11:55 PM »
To find colleges that combine quality and affordability, Money analyzed dozens of data points, including graduation rates, cost of attendance, financial aid and alumni salaries. The result? A new star rating system with 736 colleges where your tuition (and time) is likely to pay off.


Looks like a decent list, to me, I'm a bit surprised at some omissions.  Anything private of course is $$$, the publics are usually OK for in state.  I often see the top publics as being UCal, UM, UVA, UNC, ... etc., which doesn't make it so.  From what I could tell circa 1980, UNC undergrad was >> UGA undergrad, I think that gap has narrowed some now.  UF is generally considered to be a good public.  

No Texas schools unless I missed one.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #599 on: July 09, 2023, 04:37:14 PM »
UT-Arlington???
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72152
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #600 on: July 09, 2023, 04:47:53 PM »
A&M often ranks pretty well in some such lists.  Vandy usually makes one too.  Of those I know anything about, I'd say the list is decent, but I'd probably weight cost heavier than they do.  Sure, Harvard is probably fine, but is it worth the extra cost over in state UVA?  I'd say nyet, especially if you continue to grad school.  Nobody cares where you did your undergrad work.

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11253
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #601 on: July 09, 2023, 05:20:35 PM »
I think you're describing the manufacturing process of hockey pucks.


1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.