8:15 p.m. -- Did charter flight win it for LSU?

LEXINGTON, Ky. -- LSU won 9-8 today on the dramatic ninth-inning homer I'm sure you know about by now.

But suppose the Tigers had taken a commercial flight this weekend instead of a charter?

After the SEC travel-day curfew affected strategy in Paul Mainieri's first conference series as LSU's coach last season and other travel problems had an adverse effect upon the team, Mainieri visited with athletic director Skip Bertman to talk about travel.

The decisions they made together may have helped LSU sweep the series with a Sunday victory.

You may recall reading here March 27 about the agreement they made that allowed them to take a charter here this weekend. The game today was under no getaway-day time limit like the one that has given LSU the last three ties in the SEC, and that's because the Tigers didn't have an airline deadline to meet.

If they had been scheduled to take a commercial flight home, would they have won? We'll never know for sure, but it makes you wonder if you imagine the possibilities.

On LSU's previous trip here, in 2006, the Sunday game started at 12:07 p.m. local time to accommodate the team's travel situation. The Tigers hustled off to the airport after that game, which lasted 2 hours 41 minutes.

Today's game started at 1:11 p.m. local time and lasted 3 hours 33 minutes.

Surely, had there been a curfew, the game would have started earlier, and strategy might have changed significantly in the later innings, but keep in mind LSU trailed for most of today's game. Kentucky led 8-3 after five innings, an official game, and 8-5 after six innings.

The Wildcats led 8-7 after eight innings.

Would LSU have won, lost or tied today if they weren't traveling by charter flight? It's an interesting question, and one more part of the story today as the Tigers moved into first place in the SEC Western Division.

Give Mainieri credit for taking the situation to Bertman last year (as described in the link above), and give Bertman credit for making the charter flights possible.

Monday morning update: Some of you who read this last night wrote to say you thought I was trying to take credit for the victory. I'm not sure how someone could read it that way, but I made a few edits this morning to make it clear that the only reason I linked my earlier story from March was to give you an easy reference for the context of the discussion.

I never thought nor intended to convey that my story played a role. The story was written after the decision was made. I simply linked it here for background reading for all of you.

I also got a few e-mails from people saying I like to promote myself by linking my old stories. The short version of why I do that sometimes is it saves me from having to tell another story again. If an old story supplements the news rather handily, it's easy for me to pull out the old story as a tool for your understanding of the overall point. In the case above and in the case of the Quinn Stewart home run in 2006 (which I referenced last night as well), I was the only reporter who covered both situations.

There was really no other background source I could have easily provided for you at the end of a 12-hour day.

I hope these explanations present a better understanding. I certainly don't need to be in the self-promotion business. The Advocate runs my big head in that big ad enough as it is, and the column mugshots online seem to get bigger by the week.

Anyway, I gotta get to the airport. I'll catch up when I can.

CD