Why the College World Series Matters

by T Kyle King on Jun 24, 2007 10:44 PM EDT in Baseball

We went into tonight's game between the North Carolina Tar Heels and the Oregon State Beavers knowing it could be the final baseball game of the 2007 campaign and Corn Nation, your college baseball hub here at SportsBlogs Nation, was praying for a dramatic finish.

I took a somewhat different approach. I don't find errors at key junctures any less thrilling than walk-off home runs; Bill Buckner's gaffe provided every bit as stunning a finish as Kirk Gibson's dinger. It's all a part of the majesty and the grandeur that is baseball.

I'm two paragraphs into a posting about college baseball, so tradition dictates that I must post a good-luck picture of Kristin Davis. To whom did I intend to bring favorable fortunes? Stay tuned. . . .

I didn't just want a good game; in fact, I didn't particularly want a good game at all, because I had a preference as to the outcome. I wanted Oregon State to win, for the following reasons:

I don't care for the idea of ending a double-elimination tournament with a best-of-three series. If one team comes through the winners bracket and the other team comes through the losers bracket, the team that was one loss away from being sent home isn't entitled to a clean slate and a level playing field. The fact that the Beavers, who had not lost since their arrival in Omaha, had to defeat the once-beaten Tar Heels twice to repeat as national champions simply wasn't right, so I was rooting for O.S.U. to correct that injustice.
As a University of Georgia graduate, I have a natural disdain for the University of North Carolina, which falsely claims to be the oldest state-chartered university in the country. This is simple math, people: the Georgia General Assembly chartered the University of Georgia in 1785; the North Carolina General Assembly chartered the University of North Carolina in 1789; we win; they lose; end of argument. Until U.N.C. owns up to its Johnny-come-lately status, I will root against the Tar Heels in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise.
I hate orange on general principle and Oregon State's color scheme is disturbingly Halloweenesque, but my Y chromosome simply will not allow me to hope that a team clad in sky-blue uniforms will win any sort of championship. The Tar Heels wear intercollegiate athletics' girliest color, so it offends me as a member of the male gender to have them finish first in any manly sport.
Finally, and most importantly, Oregon State opened the season with three straight wins over the Diamond Dogs. Perhaps this early sweep started the Classic City Canines on their epic downward spiral, but I tend to root for Georgia's non-rival out-of-conference opponents. If the Beavers won the national championship, then, hey, that means three of Georgia's 33 losses were to the eventual national champion, right?

Temporary loyalties aside, though, two recurring thoughts have run repeatedly through my mind while watching the College World Series finals: Erin Andrews is something else and college baseball is a great game. If I'm too tough on David Perno, it's because the Red and Black ought to be perennial postseason fixtures on the diamond, just as they are on the gridiron, the parallel bars, the tennis court, and the links.

I want to see the Bulldogs playing here every season . . . and not just so I can make fun of the name "Rosenblatt," either.

Baseball is a beautiful game, a game that is worth having your heart broken by it and forgiving it and renewing your affections for it. Unlike such transient and gaudy sports-like spectacles as the Super Bowl, some athletic exhibitions are so sublime that they may be spoken of respectfully by location alone, without the need to call them by name. No S.E.C. football fan has to ask what is meant by a reference to "New Orleans"; no golf aficionado has any doubt what is described by the term "Augusta"; no one who appreciates baseball wonders about the significance of the name "Omaha."

Contrary to what some so-called experts would tell you, this is as it should be. My congratulations go out (again) to the Oregon State Beavers on winning the College World Series. We'll see y'all in Omaha next year.

Go 'Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

In re: UNC-UGA

As someone entitled to the rights conferred by holding two degrees, I am as fond of the University of Georgia as anyone, but I think intellectual honesty dictates that The University of North Carolina has an argument here...

First off and most importantly, I rarely hear a UNC person argue that they are the oldest "state-chartered" university in the country. They normally say, and I believe correctly, that they are the oldest state university in the country. They opened for students 1/15/1795. The University of Georgia opened for students in 1801. If anything, the qualifier "-chartered" is just that - a qualification, used by UGA promoters to have a technical superlative that belies the actual facts. UNC historians need no qualification.

Suppose I have a good friend in the State of Georgia's General Assembly. For laughs, I get him to author a piece of legislation chartering my company (LD's Awesome Stuff) to make time machines. I make no time machines, and I have no technology in hand to make time machines. In fact, I don't even have to make an attempt to make time machines. If, decades down the road, someone else (probably in the Google headquarters) does invent a time machine, it'd be utterly ridiculous for me to say, "nice try, Google, but LD's Awesome Stuff is the first state-chartered builder of time machines in the country."

Point is: It's not good enough just to have a charter - you have to actually do something with it. UNC opened first. They deserve the credit for being first. And as a UGA fan, I've always thought the "-chartered" qualification was an undeserved piece of braggadocio. If anything, the fact that the school was chartered in 1785 and didn't open for 16 years speaks to a failure on the state's part - and little to be proud of.

I say it with love...

by LD on Jun 25, 2007 12:03 AM EDT 0 recs

It's like my mechanic says . . .

. . . he can do a good quick job, but it won't be cheap, or he can do a cheap quick job, but it won't be good, or he can do a good cheap job, but it won't be quick.

Given the University of Georgia's perennial status among the "best buys in education" (i.e., a quality education for a comparatively low cost), I'd say we did a good cheap job, which explains why it wasn't quick.

Seriously, it's not like the General Assembly passed a charter and just let it collect dust for 16 years (which is why I believe the "LD's Awesome Stuff" analogy is inapt). The General Assembly set aside 40,000 acres of land, a board of trustees had been established and was holding meetings by 1786, and a president was selected for the University.

Georgia was the youngest of the 13 British colonies in North America; less than half a century elapsed between Oglethorpe and the Declaration of Independence. Under the circumstances, I'd say the Empire State of the South did an impressive job of starting the process two years before the Constitutional Convention and getting everything up and running by the time Thomas Jefferson (who had great praise for the University of Georgia, incidentally, long before he established the University of Virginia) took office as president.

As evidenced by most of our student careers, there's a lot more to being a university than merely holding classes. Those North Carolina folks were just in too big a rush, whereas we here in the Deep South bide our time and get the job done right.

by T Kyle King on Jun 25, 2007 8:40 AM EDT 0 recs

Fine, well allow me to expand on the analogy...

I get my friend the state legislator to author and pass a charter allowing me to build time machines in 2007. I set aside an area in my garage which I rope off and place a sign up saying "Time Machines will be built here." When I have friends over, I show them the area and say that I'm totally one day going to build a time machine in this spot. Occasionally I draw prototype drawings on napkins. I read books about time travel. I watch the scene in Napoleon Dynamite where Uncle Rico electrocutes his testicles hundreds of times, taking copious notes. I tell my adorable daughter that when I finally get around to building the actual time machine, she can be the President of the company. I convince several friends to invest nominal amounts in LD's Awesome Stuff by offering them "positions on the board of directors". However, I do not build a time machine for some time.

Then, Google comes out with their GoogleTimeShifter, which allows time travel. Because of Google's belief in open source technology, I learn from their technology and build my own time machine, only adding spectacular flame decals and multiple cup holders.

I reveal my time machine (which I built in my workshop) and have my adorable daughter (fulfilling her duties as President of LD's Awesome Stuff) reveal the awesome design at a press conference attended to by my extended family and my stoner neighbor. I put out a press release that says LD's Awesome Stuff: Now Selling Time Machines! Buy your time machine from the oldest state-chartered builder of time machines in the nation! Forget that Johnny-Come-Lately Google! We were chartered 20 years ago!" A few years after I reveal my time machine, Sony gets in the time machine business (with great fanfare and critical approval) and admits that it modeled the multiple cupholder design directly off of the LD's Awesome Stuff model.

I got the charter first, and I took actions (however slowly, cheaply and half-assedly) that suggested one day time machines would be built. I had less experience than and I was at a financial and technological disadvantage to Google and others (though I wonder if experience and financial advantages honestly makes a difference in determining who does something "first" - it might make my accomplishment more impressive on the whole, but first is first).

Any other requirements for the analogy to work?

Point is: UNC opened first. The fact we were first to have a piece of paper saying we could one day open means very little. Personally, I wish UGA would be proud of when we opened, rather than cling to the chartering superlative.

by LD on Jun 25, 2007 10:54 AM EDT up 0 recs

The analogy still fails . . .

. . . because there is no evidence of which I am aware that there was any conscious copying of the University of North Carolina by authorities of the University of Georgia (which had a president before U.N.C. opened its doors).

If we were to apply your analogy to our alma mater, Google would be located not in Chapel Hill, N.C., but in New Haven, Conn., as Yale was the alma mater of a number of early University of Georgia administrators, plans for buildings on the Yale campus were used to design corresponding buildings on the Georgia campus, and we borrowed the nickname of their sports teams for our own.

Based upon all the data of which I am aware, Georgia did not borrow from the North Carolina model; we simply took longer (and not without good reason) to carry intention and establishment into full and final execution in the form of Franklin College opening its doors. I daresay most charters are issued prior to the ultimate implementation of the contemplated objective, so we hardly are exceptional in this respect.

I understand and appreciate the argument you are making, and I credit our North Carolinian brethren for their expeditiousness, but the analogy (University of North Carolina : University of Georgia :: Google : lazy guy making halfhearted efforts in his garage) sells the flagship institution of our state far short. I trust Abraham Baldwin and Josiah Meigs (namesakes of an agricultural college and the University's highest teaching award, respectively) would agree with me.

The better analogy is this: I own two houses. (I don't, but I suspect you haven't yet reserved "LD's Awesome Stuff" with the Secretary of State, either, so indulge me for a moment.) I hire one guy on Monday to paint one of my houses. He starts painting on Tuesday but other obligations cause him to put the job aside temporarily. He comes back and finishes painting the house on Friday.

In the interim, I hire another painter to paint my other house on Wednesday. He immediately takes up the job and finishes it on Thursday. Both painters come to me on Saturday, expecting payment. I'm not sure I have enough money on hand, so I tell them I will pay them in the order in which they were contracted and, if I lack adequate funds with which to pay them both, the other fellow will have to wait until the banks open on Monday to be paid in full.

I believe that I pay the first guy first, because he's the one I hired to do the job first, even though he finished the job second. Maybe the second guy has a gripe that he worked more efficiently and, therefore, he ought to be paid sooner. If, however, our argument is over which painter was contracted first, I believe the first guy to be hired has that distinction. So it is with the argument over the nation's oldest state-chartered university.

If you object to our use of the "state-chartered" distinction, we might reach something akin to the compromise reached in the rivalry between Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams: Joe called Ted the best hitter he ever saw, Ted called Joe the best ballplayer he ever saw, and everyone went home a winner. The University of Georgia is the oldest state-chartered university, the University of North Carolina was the first state university to begin holding classes, and a satisfactorily Solomonic distinction has been reached.

In conclusion, I would add that I only mentioned this as one of four fairly whimsical reasons for choosing to root as I did when watching two baseball games of no immediate significance to Bulldog Nation, so I will give you the last word, LD, should you choose to use it, and proceed with the understanding that this is a largely good-natured 200-year-old argument that will continue in the absence of either of us.

I hope you, your wife, and the little one are well.

by T Kyle King on Jun 25, 2007 1:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

I feel I've fallen into a trap of a red herring

Rhetorically speaking. Copying, costs, care taken to create the university have little to do with the argument.

The question is one of "who is first?". For the answer to be UGA, one must rely solely on the fact that the state drafted a charter first. For the answer to be UNC, one must rely on the fact that it had buildings and students before any other state university. I believe all persons of reasonable sentience believe that to have a university, one must have students and classes, and not merely authority to create such. That's why, quite correctly, you never hear a UGA representative or alumnus/a state that UGA is "the oldest state university in the USA". There always is the qualifier of "-chartered", because we all know that it is unreasonable to say that the university exists without a tangible site.

I'll take you up on the homebuilding analogy, but alter it so as to remove what I believe to be externalities. Mr. King decides he would like to build a home on a pristine piece of land. King contracts for the purchase of the land in January. King hires an architect, and contacts multiple lenders to arrange for financing of the purchase of land and the cost of constructing a house on it. Mr. LD decides in June that he too would like to build a home on a nearby tract of land in what would be the same neighborhood one day. LD hires an architect, contracts with lenders, closes on the property and obtains financing and begins construction in the Fall. Because of the care and concern that the eventual house be perfect, Mr. King takes his time and pores over architectural plans, awaits exactly perfect financing that allows him to build a much larger house on the property than Mr. LD. By the next January, Mr. King closes on the property and begins building the house, while Mr. LD has moved in already to the completed house. Under such a scenario, all reasonable people may agree that (1) Mr. King's house is nicer; (2) Mr. King's house took more care to be built and cost more; (3) Mr. King had the idea to build a house in the neighborhood first; but as to the question of "which house was the first in the neighborhood?" the only correct answer is Mr. LD's, since it was completed and moved into first. Mr. King can say that his house is the "first-contracted-upon house in the neighborhood", but he can't say his house was first. Similarly, UGA can say that it is a nicer college, that it took its time and perfected the location, that it faced significant obstacles in opening, that it didn't copy anything from other public colleges that opened their doors first. It can say all those things. But it can't say it was first, without qualification. UNC can say such. All it has to do is say it was first. It is no Solomonic decision to require UNC to qualify its statement - a University must necessarily "begin holding classes" for it to be a University.

Finally, I'll leave it here too... But I will say that the University of North Carolina and the University of Georgia have significant common ground between them. It took me a while to realize it, but I believe UNC and UGA are natural allies. Both are flagship universities in their growing, populous states. Both are located in beautiful, bucolic, not urban locales. Kenan Stadium and Sanford Stadium were designed in similar fashions, carved out of the hills. Both are the preeminent liberal arts state-funded colleges in their respective states. Both towns are known for their contributions to independent, college-rock music. And most importantly, the most hated rivals of each school have much in common: UNC's direct and immediate rival Duke features the same qualities UGA's rivals present - unparalleled and necessarily undeserved athletic arrogance (Florida/Tennessee/Auburn, take your pick) and undeserved academic arrogance (Georgia Tech). In fact, if you combined just about everything Georgia fans hate about all of their rivals, bundle it together, the outcome would probably be Duke as it relates to UNC (and they're just 8 miles away from one another). The point is, UNC should be UGA's ally. Even the sports we most care about aren't in conflict.

If anything, when considering whom to root for in the College World Series, you should have considered the recent actions of each school's athletics department. UNC, to my knowledge, has done nothing untoward recently with UGA, even agreeing to travel to Athens for basketball games in recent years (a heavy boost to the ticket sales for our fledgling program). Meanwhile, Oregon State has recently backed out of a football series. That sort of disrespect shouldn't go unnoticed and would serve a fine basis for rooting for the other team (albeit with disappointment).

by LD on Jun 25, 2007 4:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

Time Machines

I want to be the first into your time machine(s)... set it for Vegas in August 1980. I have a bet I want to make.

by Blogger who came in from the cold on Jun 25, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

Don't knock the baby blues

Come on, don't diss the powder blues, man. While I will agree that the baby-blue isn't the most intimidating color, the blue/gold combination that UCLA and the Chargers sport is easily one of the coolest color combinations in all of sports.

I will freely admit that UCLA's mid-90s uniforms with the girly cursive text were atrocious and just plain cartoon-bad, but the new Adidas threads with the block numbering and crisp lines are awesome. I have no problem sporting that uni. And yeah, the color's a bit LA I suppose, but isn't that the point?

by CAJason80 on Jun 25, 2007 1:26 PM EDT 0 recs

The Los Angeles argument is a good one . . .

. . . but what's North Carolina's excuse?

I previously criticized U.C.L.A.'s 1990s uniforms for the very reason you cite and, if memory serves, my colleague Nestor pointed out that the Bruins had adopted a somewhat deeper shade of blue, which made all the difference in the world. I believe that, if U.C.L.A.'s and North Carolina's current home uniforms were to be placed side-by-side, the Bruins' jerseys would be noticeably more masculine-looking than the Tar Heels', although I could be wrong about that.

For some reason, I remembered the Chargers' uniforms being a darker shade of blue than North Carolina's or U.C.L.A.'s, but I don't follow the N.F.L. very closely, so I likely am mistaken about that.

by T Kyle King on Jun 25, 2007 1:40 PM EDT up 0 recs