Cowboyfan89

re: Sen Kennedy wants more ducks in Louisiana.

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/9/26 at 6:08 pm to jimjackandjose

quote:
Animals dont migrate because cold.

They most certainly do. Some do not, most notably blue-winged teal, but a big Ole fat lazy mallard isn't flying from Saskatchewan to Louisiana simply because he feels like it.

I mean, is he going to fly south simply because it's 32 in Missouri? No. So if that's all you are suggesting, then you aren't suggesting much.

But the fact is, more typically comes with northern cold than just...cold. There's snow and ice that makes that food and water unavailable to them.

Maybe the corn is available longer and allows them to stay, but what are they coming to here if it's somehow banned? Sugarcane? They'll starve to death.

This is low-hanging fruit. Maybe it has an impact if it is banned, but it's a band-aid on a bullet hole.

re: Yall ever had a package show “delivered” but wasn’t delivered?

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/4/26 at 9:12 am to LPLGTiger

quote:
Never heard of your situation.

Do you live under a rock? I have this happen at least 3 or 4 times a year.

FedEx was the most recent culprit. Apparently, the driver just managed to scan my package about 2 hours before he delivered it. Had a picture, too, but it was pitch black. Couldn't tell what it was supposed to show.

O-T Lounge

re: Indiana is not only the only Conference champion left in the playoff

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/2/26 at 9:31 am to castorinho

quote:
the problem is there are too many teams, which leads to a shite ton of subjectivity to decide the bolded part.

Exactly what I've always said. And for most of major college football's history, it didn't always pit who voters believed were #1 and #2 against each other at the end of the season.

If Michigan was #1 and the Big Ten Champ, they were going to the Rose. If Florida State was #2 and the ACC Champ, then they were going to the Orange. There was no "national championship". If Michigan won the Rose and the voters said they were #1, guess what? They were the national championship. It didn't matter what their schedule actually looked like or who they beat--X number of writers said they were #1, so they were.

Even under the BCS, human perception played a huge role in who played in the NCG. Oklahoma slDtate was over Alabama in every computer ranking except 2, but Alabama was over Ok State in both human polls--so Bama got the nod.

Neither of those systems was great at telling you who was actually #1. Hell, even the playoff isn't, but if this "proves" anything, it's that it's all subjective. Being a "Conference Champion" doesn't mean what people want to think it does.

Honestly, a playoff without NIL would have been interesting to see. I think as time goes on, 12 won't seem like too many (as long as they quit giving spots to G5 teams just to be nice). In fact, there will probably come a time where there's more of a debate about teams getting left out, and it will expand again.

It should, because honestly bowl season sucks now. Get rid of half of these crap bowls, and quit letting ESPN monopolize the games. Something just isn't right about a New Year's Day where the Rose Bowl isn't on ABC.

re: Does Miami's win change the narrative of there's too many teams in the playoff?

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/1/26 at 12:42 pm to samson73103

quote:
Bama was clearly the best team not named LSU.

Based on what? Having the best loss in the country?

Oklahoma State had more wins against teams that were ranked in the Top 10 at the time of the matchup, and had the same number of wins against Teams in the final BCS Top 10 , and one more win against teams in the final Top 25. Hell, Okie State had a better composite computer ranking. The only reason Alabama ended up in over OkSU was because of the...wait for it...human polls.

So the only argument is that they had a better loss, and it was against the team they played in the NCG. Perception made them the 2nd best team...just like perception made Ohio State the 2nd best team this year...

-1

re: Does Miami's win change the narrative of there's too many teams in the playoff?

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/1/26 at 11:34 am to samson73103

:lol:

This childish "you're tears are so delicious" argument always cracks me up as a retort. Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I didn't give 2 shits about it 2 weeks after the game. Life goes on.

That doesn't mean I can't point out the fact that Alabama didn't deserve to be in that game, regardless of the outcome of the game. Oklahoma didn't deserve to be in the NCG in 2003. Nebraska didn't in 2001.

Take the BCS and apply it to the CFP and you have a winner. But the fact that there are multiple examples of teams making the BCSNCG that didn't deserve it makes the whole "the regular season matters" argument that people love to use about that time laughable. The regular season didn't matter when the BCS put Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Alabama in the NCG.

re: The bye is ridiculous

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/1/26 at 9:43 am to lsupride87

quote:
how are y’all comparing 1 week off to 3?

How are people ignoring that this isn't a new concept with the playoff or the national championship for that matter?

Last year was not the first year that teams had 3+ weeks between the end of the regular season and a playoff/national championship game. But amazingly, no one argued that that length of time was the reason for someone "being slow" or losing a game.

That 0-5 stat is also somewhat misleading.

Take Notre Dame/Georgia last year. That game was 6-3 until late in the first half. UGA actually scored first, but that wasn't until 3 minutes into the 2nd quarter.

Texas was actually the #5 team in the country and easily the better team against #12 Arizona State, but because they weren't a conference champion, didn't get the bye.

Likewise, Penn State was #4 in the final rankings, but because they weren't a conference champion, didn't get a Top 4 seed. They were arguably a better team than Boise.

Ohio State/Oregon is the only decent argument for the bye favoring the team that played in the first round.

I mean really, think about this for a second--two of those 4 losses last year were by teams that were only Top 4 seeds by virtue of a conference title. If that rule was in effect this year, your Top 4 would have been UGA, Indiana, Texas Tech, and TULANE.

re: Does Miami's win change the narrative of there's too many teams in the playoff?

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/1/26 at 9:32 am to samson73103

quote:
you do realize if a playoff had existed then, that it would have still most likely been LSU vs Bama in the finals?

At least Bama would have earned it then.

I like the concept of computers being used to take bias out of the equation (and nonsense like Team A being ahead of Team B for several weeks, only to drop behind them because "now we can see the complete body of work"). I didn't like it being the Top 2 teams only when it put someone in that didn't belong there, or left a team out that deserved a shot.

2004 Auburn never got a chance on the field.

2011 Alabama got a chance but didn't deserve it. They didn't even make the conference championship game--because they lost to the team that did--but made the NCG against that same team. Everyone wants to blame Okie State's loss against Iowa State for the reason Bama got in, but the Cowboys had a better late season win against #10 Oklahoma versus Bama's win against #24 Auburn.

I'll admit--some of it is sour grapes that Bama got a second chance and won, but that's the one time there should have been a human component to the selection. Alabama getting a shot they didn't earn will always be a black eye on the BCS IMO, right there with USC not making it in 2003.

re: The bye is ridiculous

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/1/26 at 9:18 am to bisonduck

quote:
The bye is ridiculous

I mean, I get that the Top 4 are currently 0-5 in the 12 team playoff, but this argument is dumb. Does every team coming off a bye during the regular season lose? It's not like the bye is a foreign concept to college football. Sure, it's not exactly the same since one is only 2 weeks between games, but nobody made this claim when all 4 teams had the entire month of December off. Nobody said it when the two teams in the BCSCG had a month off.

Yeah, 0-5 is insane and you wouldn't expect that to be the case, but the real question is "why". Why are these teams consistently losing so far when they've had weeks to prepare? This isn't like Miami having to solely focus on TAMU and then only having 11 days (which is more than typical for CFB) to prepare for OSU.

OSU had an entire month to study both teams. They had an entire month to be ready. And they just got beat.

Sure, there's something to be said for momentum. But at some point, you have to start looking at the preparation being put in and question that.

This may be a moot point if Indiana, Tech, and UGA win today, though.

re: Does Miami's win change the narrative of there's too many teams in the playoff?

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 1/1/26 at 8:56 am to OKBoomerSooner

quote:
fans mostly said that college football was an awesome sport because the entire season mattered. "The whole season is a playoff," etc. So there's definitely an argument that this format is bad because it threw that away.

Fans of major college football (i.e., FBS), which appear to be largely ignorant to how the rest of college football operates.

This whole "the regular season doesn't matter anymore" rhetoric that some want to suggest because it's now a 12 team playoff are just complaining. Nobody says this about any other level of any sport that has a playoff. It's just an ignorant argument.

At least the playoff creates more meaningful games beyond the first weekend of December. There was only one game that mattered under the BCS. The rest just fell on a sliding scale of how interesting they were because of the matchup and/or the prestige of the bowl game.

Unless we overcorrect and go back to a dozen or so bowl games, the only logical way to make the postseason entertaining again is to expand this thing to the same number of teams as the rest of college football. Nobody cares to see conference rematches in meaningless bowl games in Birmingham. And games like BYU/GT deserved a bigger spotlight and to not be played in some ridiculous Pop Tart Bowl...

-1

re: beekeepers vs biologists...the chinese tallow problem

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/30/25 at 8:29 pm to cgrand

quote:
Environments change, life finds a way.

Valid point...except that it wasn't the environment changing that allowed tallow to proliferate here. If that were the case, I would agree with you. But it's not, thus why the species is considered introduced and invasive.

Limpkins are a better example of "life finds a way" than tallow is. Those things just showed up here on a whim 5-7 years ago, and they've just made themselves right at home. Nobody brought them here--they just heard that Louisiana had all this untapped escargo hanging around that no one else was gobbling up, and said "let's geaux"...

Home & Garden

re: Chicks wearing deer antlers

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/24/25 at 7:26 pm to STLDawg

quote:
TIL the random fact that female reindeer are the only female deer to grow antlers

Not only that, but the females are the only ones to retain their antlers through the winter.

So if Santa's sleigh pullers were just magical caribou, that would mean they are all female.

O-T Lounge

re: Reminder, Notre Dame lost to both

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/20/25 at 3:20 pm to Horsemeat

quote:
They're going to go with the FCS model. 1-8 get byes, 9-24 play at higher seed stadium. Same for week 2 and 3. Semis and final at neutral. Conference championship games get scrapped.

Scrap 75% of the bowl games that would be left, too. Give those sponsors the option to sponsor the playoff games.

Bowl games were always meaningless outside of the major, post-NYD games. Now they are just pointless games with stupid gimmicky things like mascots being dropped into toasters.

-2

re: 16 team playoff this season

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/13/25 at 7:38 am to SloaneRanger

Let's stop and think for a minute about why these teams are "unworthy", because playoffs have worked for decades at every other level of college football (and college sports, for that matter).

The long-standing bowl system created the Haves and Have Nots. The BCS and then the College Football Playoff reinforced it, because if you weren't in a particular conference, you weren't "good enough".

What is FBS football going to look like in 10 years when the conference you're in doesn't automatically dictate your ceiling? Hell, we still had Have Nots even in the "marquee" conferences like the SEC and Big Ten, but who were the big stories this year?

Indiana and Vanderbilt, perennial cellar dwellers.

The playing field is being leveled. What we thought was the best system in the past was the result of what the people in charge wanted you to think. Now, I'll admit, I'd rather see a system like the BCS used to determine who makes the playoffs rather than these bullshite "eye tests" and the ever-changing criteria of a human committee.

We need to go back to a system where only a handful of teams have a postseason.

24 Team Playoff.

-1

re: NFL Various Games - Week 14

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/7/25 at 2:46 pm to TheGasMan

quote:
I repeat, Burrow Blows

Ya'll are dumb as hell with these takes...:lol:

Ball got tipped at the line, how does that equate to "Burrow Blows"?

-2

re: Miami out

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/7/25 at 5:35 am to JamalMurry27

Miami missed the ACC title game on some stupid tiebreaker. These conferences need to go back to divisions (or something) to limit this nonsense--Miami didn't even play either team that made the ACC Championship.

Alabama got their asses stomped by a team they beat earlier this year. Alabama should be out--or traveling to Tulane if they are in...:lol:

re: EPA Wetlands Proposal

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/7/25 at 5:20 am to CharleyLake

Sounds like the Bayou D'Inde area...

That would definitely be one of those interesting areas to see how the Corps would handle it under the new rule. Given that they were still calling rice fields jurisdictional after Sackett, I'd suspect they'd still exercise some authority over the wetlands there. Even without "clear" guidance, it should have been obvious to everyone that rice fields don't maintain a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent waters.

re: Gus Johnson will ruin this game

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/6/25 at 8:09 pm to Bunk Moreland

Who let that pre-teen boy call a nationally-televised football game?! :rotflmao:

re: Gumps should be OUT!

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/6/25 at 6:19 pm to TigerFan91

This ain't Saban's Bama. They don't deserve benefit of the doubt when they are getting stomped like this.

DeBoer better make sure the resume is updated. Seven losses in his first 2 seasons...ouch.

re: EPA Wetlands Proposal

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/6/25 at 4:13 pm to CharleyLake

quote:
Yes, the property is in SWLA (Calcasieu Parish).

Nice!

I've delineated quite a few properties in that area. Very few that aren't heavily degraded by invasive species and drainage today. The ones that aren't are pretty cool places.

re: EPA Wetlands Proposal

Posted by Cowboyfan89 on 12/5/25 at 6:46 pm to CharleyLake

quote:
At present much of the property that falls under the definition of wetlands are well-drained areas called "pimple mounds."

Are you talking about a specific property? Because pimple mounds are really only "common" (they really aren't all that common anymore with all of the land grading that has occurred) in the prairies and flatwood savannahs in SWLA. It's a very regional topographic feature in the state.

However, ridge/swale complexes are common throughout the state. I've delineated ridge/swale in every corner of the state, but have never really seen pimple mounds outside of SWLA.

quote:
Under the new proposal the wetlands area would have to be touching visible water surface at least part of the year under a typical season. We may hear it called "the continuous surface rule."

Not just touching, but actually have surface water itself through a majority of the wet season. Saturated wetlands would (theoretically) no longer be jurisdictional under this rule.

Think Maurepas Swamp. SCOTUS essentially said the wetland has to be so indistinguishable from the jurisdictional water (i.e., river, lake, gulf, etc.) that you can't tell where the water ends and the wetland begins.