6 team regional format or super regional format

6 team regional, by far.

definitely the 6 team regionals

the super regional format is only around so the CWS wouldnt be entirely teams from the southeast, texas, and cali

quote:

---

But i also like only one game for the CWS title. Not best 2 out of 3.

---

I also wish it had stayed at one game...obviously this is just a money making scheme...

6 team regionals were great for fans. (If you are a true fan). 3 games in a day and with teams you didn't see very often. Can't beat that.
Super regional format is probably better for the game though.

6 team regional format......with that you had decent crowds at the games that didnt involve the host schools...more often than not, there were teams in the regionals that were from different parts of the country that you would normally not get to see....and it was a bigger party atmosphere....i dont know, i like the 6 team regional....and the one game for all the marbles for the title in omaha.....they're dragging the tournament on too long with regioals, super regionals and the two weeks in omaha, well, 10 days.......its almost as bad as the NBA playoffs, now.

Are you saying you dislike the NCAA basketball tourney.....rarely does a team go from beginning to end of the season as being "expected to win"


ETA Is it Fresno's fault that they happened to beat the teams that were "expected to win"....if LSU would have won it last year would you say they were "expected to win" it from the beginning

quote:

---

super regional, loved it when they went to it, more closely resembles ML playoffs

---

Interesting, because that is a bad thing imo. The only thing MLB ever got right was the way it crowned its champions before they started having playoffs. 140+ (now 160+) game seasons are ridiculous except for one thing: after you have played that many games, there is no meaningful doubt about who the best team is. There is no debate about one team getting hot "at the right time" or a fluke injury costing another team a few key games; over the course of 140+ games that shite will all even itself out. So what did MLB do? Screw it all up with a stupid playoff system, then make it all the worse by adding WILDCARDS! The very notion that a team that couldn't rise to the top over the course of a 162 game season suddenly becomes somehow more deserving because they won 4 games in a playoff series is laughable.

6 team regionals were awesome. Like someone posted earlier, it was great for fans. I enjoyed seeing teams you never get to see play. Loved parking the RV early on Thursday morning and rolling back home on Sunday evenings all drained from the heat of 4 days watching baseball in 90 degree heat and 100 percent humidity.

3 things I recall from the 6 team regionals:

1. The outburst against Georgia Tech
2. The big kid from (CS Fullerton I think) who threw something like 140-150 pitches on a hot humid evening.
3. Coming back and winning 2 from UAB on the Sunday. I felt bad for the UAB kids, but was happy we had won.

quote:

---

Are you saying you dislike the NCAA basketball tourney

---

I wasn't saying that, but I'm not a huge fan of it. The idea that a team could theoretically go winless for an entire season, and then win 10 games in a row (4 conference tourney games and then 6 in the NCAAs) and suddenly be deemed "the best team in the country" is clear evidence of a broken system. Obviously that's not going to happen, but putting that much more significance on 6 games than the other 30+ games just because those last 6 happen in March/April is silly.

quote:

---

rarely does a team go from beginning to end of the season as being "expected to win"

---

Has nothing to do with being "expected to win." It has to do with actually winning. The Giants were not the best team in the NFL in the 2007 season. It's not because they weren't "expected to win" as much as some other teams, it's because they didn't win as much as some other teams. The fact that 4 of their wins happened to come in the playoffs as opposed to October is not impressive enough to me to make me ignore the other 16 games of the season.

quote:

---

Is it Fresno's fault that they happened to beat the teams that were "expected to win"....

---

Of course not, I never suggested it was. All I said was that they were not the best NCAA baseball team over the course of last NCAA baseball season, and that I believe the championship process should try its best to crown a champion who is in fact the best team of that season. Large playoff fields and high numbers of "wildcards" or "at large" bids significantly improve the chances that the true "best team" is not going to win the championship.

quote:

---

if LSU would have won it last year would you say they were "expected to win" it from the beginning

---

No. Again, it has nothing to do with being "expected to win." I don't know why you keep quoting that language. I do know that if we had kept that winning streak up all the way through Omaha, I would have enjoyed the hell out of the Championship but would have admitted in a heartbeat that we were not the best team over the course of the season.