I guess I shouldn't be surprised by terrible writing from The Advocate, but there's another gem in today's paper.

Scott Hotard rambles on about how he doesn't like the three-game format because it "lacks drama" and could possibly render LSU's dramatic game 1 meaningless.

Late in the article, he casually mentions the "only" advantage of a three game series -- The best team usually wins.

Where was this article during the Super Regional? Oh wait, LSU won in two games, so all was fine. I can tell you right now, most LSU fans are glad last year's Super Regional was a 3 game series.

quote:
Either way, you figure the best game of this series is behind us.

Monday’s classic had everything you’d want in a championship game. It had perfect ending written all over it.

It had everything. Everything but the dog pile.

You get the feeling we wouldn't be reading this shite if LSU lost game 1 and won game 2 instead of vice versa.

LINK

This post was edited on 6/24/09 at 8:24 am

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Rhetoric

Member since Jun 2009

907 posts

Posted on 6/24/09 at 7:58 am to thirtyseven

Sounds like something I would see on the rant...

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prominentwon

LSU, McNeese St. Fan

Member since Jan 2005

94758 posts

Posted on 6/24/09 at 8:06 am to thirtyseven

quote:
Scott Hotard rambles on about how he doesn't like the three-game format because it "lacks drama" and could possibly render LSU's dramatic game 1 meaningless.

Yeah, and if Texas would have won the first game, he'd be screaming for a 3 game format.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by thirtyseven

Member since Dec 2007

2577 posts

Posted on 6/24/09 at 8:18 am to Prominentwon

quote:
Yeah, and if Texas would have won the first game, he'd be screaming for a 3 game format.

Exactly.

I don't understand how this series is so terrible. We saw a dramatic game 1, followed by an incredible pitching performance last night. And now it comes down to a pressure-packed game 3.

Also, although he claims to love all things dramatic, I don't think he'll shed any tears over a lopsided LSU win if it occurs. I doubt LSU fans find the national championship against Alabama in 1997 to be any less satisfying, despite slaughtering them instead of walking it off.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by rometiger

Member since May 2007

57 posts

Posted on 6/24/09 at 8:39 am to thirtyseven

Baseball is a game that has to be played in series. Otherwise a team with one great pitcher would have the huge advantage. A series makes a coach use the whole team. I love the way it is right now. As it was before a team could go undefeated through the CWS and get to the last game and lose to a team that came in through the losers bracket. They got it right hopefully one day Football will get it right as well.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Eternalmajin

Member since Jun 2008

13667 posts

Posted on 6/24/09 at 8:58 am to thirtyseven

quote:
You get the feeling we wouldn't be reading this shite if LSU lost game 1 and won game 2 instead of vice versa.

You would, but from a Texas paper instead.

I'm not shocked to see this because I was thinking something similar this morning. Monday's game was one right in line with some of the other unbelievable games LSU has won championships on. If it were a winner-take-all format, it would be etched in history right alongside Morris and Cresse.

Instead, the game will be forgotten. The only way a game will have anywhere near the same drama and be remembered for years to come is if it's the last game of the series and something amazing happens.

3 game series is the way to go and it's good for the sport. It forces teams to focus on having a few good pitchers instead of the one main star. Still, game 1 felt like one of those magical championship winning LSU moments, and if we don't get our heads out of our asses and the bats off our shoulders, it will be completely meaningless.

Page 1