2012 NCAA Approved Bat List

[Snakehandler]

http://nfca.infocus-llc.com/web_docs/fo ... atlist.pdf

Noticed there are several bats not included on the list that are being used in every softball tourney I went to last year.

Easton SCN6B, SCX24B, SCN1B, SCN4B to name a few, I'm sure there are others.

Will ASA, PGF, and other associations adopt this list?

[ontheblack]

http://nfca.infocus-llc.com/web_docs/forms/ncaabatlist.pdf

Noticed there are several bats not included on the list that are being used in every softball tourney I went to last year.

Easton SCN6B, SCX24B, SCN1B, SCN4B to name a few, I'm sure there are others.

Will ASA, PGF, and other associations adopt this list?

Guess its time to sell the SCX24B. I have a 32/22 if anyone is interested.

[MTR]

http://nfca.infocus-llc.com/web_docs/forms/ncaabatlist.pdf

Noticed there are several bats not included on the list that are being used in every softball tourney I went to last year.

Easton SCN6B, SCX24B, SCN1B, SCN4B to name a few, I'm sure there are others.

Will ASA, PGF, and other associations adopt this list?

You are aware that the NCAA still uses the ASA standards and 2004 certification, right?

The NCAA also asked for a list from manufacturers of bats they believe would pass ASA specifications. This year the NCAA has added a list (attached above) which must be presented to the umpires prior to every game. Under "Strike" a mark is to be made if that bat will be in the dugout. At the end of each line, they will enter the quantity of each model marked. Please note the disclaimer at the top of the page.

[Nocents96]

MTR you had better go back and do a bit more research on the current NCAA bat protocol.
1- Bat has ASA 2004 certification seal
2- Bat appears on NCAA 2012 approved softball bat list
3- Bat is suitable for play (no cracks, rattles...)

I believe the strike on the list is an indication that the model has failed suplamental BCT
testing. Three strikes and it is off the list.

[Snakehandler]

So I'm confused. Those Easton bats mentioned in the original post are not on the ASA banned bat list, nor are they on the NCAA Approved Bat list. Can a college player use them as long as they meet testing standards? Can they be used in ASA?

[Nocents96]

They are not approved for NCAA.
They are legal for ASA play.

[MTR]

MTR you had better go back and do a bit more research on the current NCAA bat protocol.
1- Bat has ASA 2004 certification seal
2- Bat appears on NCAA 2012 approved softball bat list
3- Bat is suitable for play (no cracks, rattles...)

I agree. I stated it needed 2004 certification. Two is part of the absurdity of the NCAA approach, sort of ego-centric and three is a no brainer that is included in every rule set of which I am aware.

I believe the strike on the list is an indication that the model has failed suplamental BCT
testing. Three strikes and it is off the list.

Not the way it was originally explained to me, but I'll take your word for it. Though, that reason made no more sense then the one you just offered. Who cares if it has failed the test once if it is still legal? If it gets to the point where it is to be dropped from the list, just drop it from the list. No need for extraneous data, the list is big enough.

Then again, if they move to the new ball, many, if not all, the lists may go away.

[AlwaysImprove]

MTR you had better go back and do a bit more research on the current NCAA bat protocol.
1- Bat has ASA 2004 certification seal
2- Bat appears on NCAA 2012 approved softball bat list
3- Bat is suitable for play (no cracks, rattles...)

I agree. I stated it needed 2004 certification. Two is part of the absurdity of the NCAA approach, sort of ego-centric and three is a no brainer that is included in every rule set of which I am aware.

I believe the strike on the list is an indication that the model has failed suplamental BCT
testing. Three strikes and it is off the list.

Not the way it was originally explained to me, but I'll take your word for it. Though, that reason made no more sense then the one you just offered. Who cares if it has failed the test once if it is still legal? If it gets to the point where it is to be dropped from the list, just drop it from the list. No need for extraneous data, the list is big enough.

Then again, if they move to the new ball, many, if not all, the lists may go away.

Yeah, because if anyone has a bat list besides ASA, they are definitely ego maniacs .

The reason that NCAA has bats that are dissallowed is because everyone knows that bats that pass at manufacture may exceed the 98mph standard after use, rolling, or other modification. Perhaps it is ego that keeps some associations sticking their head in the sand over the issue.

The reason for the strikes in the column is so that people know which bats are heading for the bin.

Not sure how changing the ball addresses a consistent, over time, bat standard that keeps people from cheating.

[MTR]

Yeah, because if anyone has a bat list besides ASA, they are definitely ego maniacs .

I love responding to your posts as it always allows for justification of your name.

The reason that NCAA has bats that are dissallowed is because everyone knows that bats that pass at manufacture may exceed the 98mph standard after use, rolling, or other modification.

Wow, imagine that, the same manner and reasons ASA tests bats. The NCAA bat list has nothing to do with testing. It is a list of bats offered by the manufacturers based on their belief, not any science or testing provided. That data comes from ASA's approval indicated by the 2004 Certification Stamp and not appearing on the Non-approved Bat List.

Perhaps it is ego that keeps some associations sticking their head in the sand over the issue.

Really? ASA has been nearly a decade ahead of the rest of the world in bat safety, testing and certification. Even U-trip has moved to a testing process and issuing a new certification stamp which will be required for all bats in 2013. Don't know if that will effect their FP rules.

The "ego" issue is the point that the NCAA has a burning need to claim and impose control over anything to do with college sports as their own.

The reason for the strikes in the column is so that people know which bats are heading for the bin.

Again, extraneous data. The player isn't going to stop using the bat because it has failed a single test. There is no reason to include that in a list that is used for notifying the umpire of the bats being used in that game.

Not sure how changing the ball addresses a consistent, over time, bat standard that keeps people from cheating.

Again, way behind the curve. Ball companies have been working with ASA for years to try and find the right ball and the 52/300 has been the best anyone has developed yet. I suspect most sanctioning bodies will be going to this ball in the next year or two for the SP game.

This ball negates the effect of hot bats, altered or otherwise. A good hitter will still be a good hitter, the mediocre hitter that relies on the equipment to provide increased performance will need to learn how to hit.

The impact has been shown to be less catastrophic upon a player when hit with the ball. Also, temperatures have little to no effect on the ball, so there will be improved consistency.

The NCAA has funded additional testing, but I don't know if the will sacrifice offense for safety.

[AlwaysImprove]

You are easy to respond to as well. The whole ASA "not invented here" has served you and ASA well over the last 10 years . I would lock up on that ground and build taller walls. A different approach you guys may consider sometime, just saying, would be to look at what others are doing that are smart, pull your head out of your butts and make adjustments.

Last time I looked NCAA is the governing body for NCAA softball. Imagine their egos for having a say in what happens in NCAA softball. The nerve of it !

The ball does not make sense to me. Let's say you have a bat model that is 20% hotter than others. Yeah a dead ball can make that bat safe. But the bat is still 20% hotter than everyone else is allowed to use. Now everyone will have to go to that bat, just to hit your dead ball a decent distance. If you think the materials guys are not smart enough to build bats to hit your dead ball, you are not paying attention.

I fully admit that ASA led the way in Bat testing, against a lot of input from people that did not think it was necessary. ASA did great work to start things off.

NCAA realized that even given ASA testing regime, their were bats that were in play that exceeded the 98mph standard. ASA seemed to lock up on 'their' testing regime, even in the face of endless mounting practical data. Teams knew what was going on, fans knew what was going on, yet ASA denied and denied.

Through some set of mechanisms bats were showing up hot, way exceeding 98mph. That could be modification through rolling, modification through shaving or through a break in. I suspect based on the stakes involved most of this was happening through break in, albeit an extreme break-in.

NCAA recognized they had a reasonable test using the BCT testers. That they could address the hot bats in their inventory by BCT testing the bats in the field. They also verify the BCT testing by sending the bats back to WSU testing laboratory. Sure bat testing and BCT testing were invented by ASA, but that does not preclude NCAA from doing something smart with them.

The 'Bat Problem' at the NCAA level has largely gone away. There is no arguing that. 4 years ago you had UCLA hitters launching homeruns as their entire swing collapsed and they mis-swung. You had missed pitches launched 250 feet. You had the famed 'nike' bat at UofA. You had FL hitters all using the same 1 bat, which seemed to be off the chart hot. The bat shenanigans dictated the game. Now with the new NCAA testing approach bat problems are gone.

The same thing has been happening at the youth level, but I suspect at the youth level it was actual rolling or shaving of the bat. Youth cheaters have little worry of ASA figuring any of this out. They are counting on ASA staying locked up on their island and busy building up their 'not invented here' walls, and I believe they are on a safe bet.

You say science, but the science of the NCAA approach seems pretty solid and seems to be removing the bats it should and keeping the bats that should be kept. Bat manufacturers can appeal, push for additional testing, yet they are not doing that, because bat manufacturers know these bats were beating the ASA testing approach.

As far as strikes go, yeah 1 strike will probably not have a kid changing bats. But 2 strikes certainly would. Also if your whole team is using the same bat which happens in NCAA sponsorship world, getting 1 strike may put you into motion to talk to your manufacture sponsor and to start to look at alternatives.

NCAA bat testing has helped the NCAA game. To win a discussion about it, someone would have to show how NCAA approach has hurt the game in some fashion, and I just do not see that happening. The rest is ASA is smarter than NCAA BS, which no one cares about.