2012 Rocketech and NCAA Approval?

[AlwaysImprove]

Yes, you are back to spinning. You see a bat with two strikes, YOU decide it must have received a third strike without any PROOF.

But, the simple fact is that absolutely zero bat models have received three strikes under the NCAA testing process, to my knowledge, just as the same bats have not failed the ASA test process. Your conjecture about any specific bat model is just that.

Show proof of any bat model that received three strikes. Something from the NCAA or a bat manufacturer stating that fact. Instead of insisting about what you "know". Show proof and I will admit if I am wrong.

So far as I am concerned, you can spin it back to NCAA=good/ASA=bad, just like you spin PGF=good/ASA=bad as often as you wish. I might even pitch in to buy you the pom-poms that your costume lacks when you chant.

Show me the proof.

What?
Let me put this straight. So first you are claiming that a bat model which is vastly popular. So popular that at least 10 major programs went so far out of their way that they bought 200-300 of this specific model. Every game they played they used that specific bat. During regionals and WCWS you could see every player on that team using one specific bat. Even given all this love for that bat model, the manufacturer just did not feel like sending NCAA an email to add the bat to this list. Straight BS.

Now you are going even further. Claiming the manufacturer took the time to add the bat to the list. The bat gets two strikes. The process is widely known that a third strike will remove the bat from the list. I point out one specific bat this happens to as an example. But if you have watched the lists with any attention at you see this happening. Bat's get two strikes then they are gone from play. Bat's on the list are being used. Only reason they go off the list is cause they failed to maintain status on the list. Even more straight BS.

No one is believing you guys. Someone is hurting ASA reputation, but it is not me.

[AlwaysImprove]

The first time I looked at the NCAA list was lat year. It was then I noticed that my daughter's phenix was not on the list. I contacted demarini(sorry G) and two coaches that were on the board that handled the "bat list"

1) Coaches response was pretty basic- the list was comprised of bats submitted by the mfg that they felt would pass the standards when tested. The reason for the rule was based on fair competition. They also felt that the mfg were very upfront in their submissions. The coach's response also struck me as quite naive.

2) A rep from demarini said that the Phenix was not submitted for one reason and one reason alone. Since it was no longer manufactured and they had none in inventory- they felt it was a wastes of time and money to submit. Only current order bats were included. He said they did not submit any of of production bats and except for a few exceptions, he thought all mfg were doing the same. "We are here to sell bats" he said. He said that he new of a few types of bats that did get "hotter" with age, but not as many as the general softball public seemed to think. He thought the Phenix would pass if tested since it was not that different than the CF4

I think the NCAA rule was good- there were some older bats out there(ie Hawaii) that may or may not have been hot- the rule (list) removes questionable bats and takes some of the assumptions being made out of the equation. As always- any tampered or altered bats should lead to punishment-since that is obvious cheating

I am not buying demarini's story. There were entire programs built around some of these bats. They had hundreds in storage so they would never run out. In particular the Phenix, and the LS SRV4B (Hawaii, FLA, UCLA bat) and the Nike bat were all dropped because no way in hell they survive even the slightest BCT scrutiny.

And everyone knew it. So bad that a group of coaches got together and requested that BCT process be adopted.

Yet, those same bats are still legal in youth play, right now. Too hot for NCAA, but ok for a 14U dad trying to get his kid that little advantage.

[MTR]

Quote:
Yet those problematic models, models that NCAA through their process have determined them too hot for NCAA play, are still allowed in youth tournaments.


Bull. Citation please.


a great example is the Phenix- no allowed for NCAA play, but allowed for JO tournament and other youth play

And why isn't it allowed for NCAA play? Could it be because the MFG never submitted it for approval? You cannot force them to offer bats they elect not to offer. That doesn't mean the bat is any more dangerous than the next. The issue here is with DeMarini, not ASA or NCAA

[MTR]

Uhh. NCAA instituted the new testing policy to get rid of ridiculous bats. Like 'the Nike bat' the one bat that everyone on FLA used, the one bat everyone on UCLA used, the Hawaii bats. That is why they put the new policy in place.

Seriously, you and MTR seem to be the only two people on the planet confused on this matter. Some models of bats are known to get hot with break-in. Those are the exact same bats that disappeared from the NCAA list. Some by 3 strikes against a model, indicating in NCAA's eyes that model routinely breaks in hot. Some by the fact that manufacturers knew they would fail, so they did not even bother.

You guys can spin in circles all day. There were users that 120% committed to those bat models. Major college users. To the point where the whole team would use 2 or 3 models. And you are saying 'Oh the bat manufacturer was lazy, and decided to not submit the bat'. Instead they went to those major college users and told them they needed to move to a new model. Right!

You really are clueless. You listen to so much BS and believe it or spin it to satisfy your own beliefs, you think you have it.

Try sitting in the ETCC of ASA meetings and listen to what happens. Sit there an listen to reps admit they took the specs to the limit. That is why ASA added a "0" or ".0" to the end of many of their specs. After the inititial certification process, a few openly admitted they changed the specs of their bat post-approval. Why do you think one company was more than cooperative in a bat exchange program?

Talk to Dr. Smith and his associates about the bats and the testing process. The companies know the people in the lab know their stuff which is why some of the graduate assistants have been hired by the bat companies.

Try listening to an NCAA rep talk about this. Hell, just read what is offered by the NCAA without inserting or re-interpreting. Get the facts, not hearsay and the check out an FAO Shwartz.

[AlwaysImprove]

Quote:
Yet those problematic models, models that NCAA through their process have determined them too hot for NCAA play, are still allowed in youth tournaments.


Bull. Citation please.


a great example is the Phenix- no allowed for NCAA play, but allowed for JO tournament and other youth play

And why isn't it allowed for NCAA play? Could it be because the MFG never submitted it for approval? You cannot force them to offer bats they elect not to offer. That doesn't mean the bat is any more dangerous than the next. The issue here is with DeMarini, not ASA or NCAA

In the case of hte Phenix they are out of spec. Grab a couple and test them, let me know what you see.

[jonriv]

It was pure economics with the Phenix- why do anything for a product you no longer sell and is out of warranty??? duh...

The Phenix was not the only bat they didd not submit- in fact they did not submit ANY of their out of production bats. Are you saying the Medusa is too hot???!!!! Frankly- I did not see much difference in the Phenix and the CF4 my daughter my daughter hit with- in fact she thinks she has more pop with the new CF5 the school gave her

I am happy the Phenix was considered HOT- I sold it for twice what I paid for it on ebay


AI- I think you are hunting the wrong conspiracy- I would agree that there were some not presented because tehy would not pass- I think far more were not presented because "new and Improved" models were in the inventory that needed to be sold

[AlwaysImprove]

Uhh. NCAA instituted the new testing policy to get rid of ridiculous bats. Like 'the Nike bat' the one bat that everyone on FLA used, the one bat everyone on UCLA used, the Hawaii bats. That is why they put the new policy in place.

Seriously, you and MTR seem to be the only two people on the planet confused on this matter. Some models of bats are known to get hot with break-in. Those are the exact same bats that disappeared from the NCAA list. Some by 3 strikes against a model, indicating in NCAA's eyes that model routinely breaks in hot. Some by the fact that manufacturers knew they would fail, so they did not even bother.

You guys can spin in circles all day. There were users that 120% committed to those bat models. Major college users. To the point where the whole team would use 2 or 3 models. And you are saying 'Oh the bat manufacturer was lazy, and decided to not submit the bat'. Instead they went to those major college users and told them they needed to move to a new model. Right!

You really are clueless. You listen to so much BS and believe it or spin it to satisfy your own beliefs, you think you have it.

Try sitting in the ETCC of ASA meetings and listen to what happens. Sit there an listen to reps admit they took the specs to the limit. That is why ASA added a "0" or ".0" to the end of many of their specs. After the inititial certification process, a few openly admitted they changed the specs of their bat post-approval. Why do you think one company was more than cooperative in a bat exchange program?

Talk to Dr. Smith and his associates about the bats and the testing process. The companies know the people in the lab know their stuff which is why some of the graduate assistants have been hired by the bat companies.

Try listening to an NCAA rep talk about this. Hell, just read what is offered by the NCAA without inserting or re-interpreting. Get the facts, not hearsay and the check out an FAO Shwartz.

We can play your game. Why did NCAA put out the new bat list? Why did they start doing BCT testing? It is in the document I posted the link. Clear for all to read. There is not much room for interpretation. They say it directly.

Yes manufacturers push the limits, and we reward them by buying their bats. I expect my bat manufacturer to earn his 200. What we are talking about is not .5, we are talking about 10-20% over 98mph spec. Based on well defined well understood and designed in materials features in composite bats that allow them to become noticeably hotter as they break-in (beyond ABI). This was occurring over a very well understood set of bat models, and NCAA instituted their process to remove those models from the game. Are you saying I am wrong?

[AlwaysImprove]

It was pure economics with the Phenix- why do anything for a product you no longer sell and is out of warranty??? duh...

The Phenix was not the only bat they didd not submit- in fact they did not submit ANY of their out of production bats. Are you saying the Medusa is too hot???!!!! Frankly- I did not see much difference in the Phenix and the CF4 my daughter my daughter hit with- in fact she thinks she has more pop with the new CF5 the school gave her

I am happy the Phenix was considered HOT- I sold it for twice what I paid for it on ebay


AI- I think you are hunting the wrong conspiracy- I would agree that there were some not presented because tehy would not pass- I think far more were not presented because "new and Improved" models were in the inventory that needed to be sold

There is no conspiracy. Merely stating what NCAA said they were doing. Take a moment and read their statement. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/2010/2011_Bat_Compliance_Final.pdf They say they have a problem with hot bats, and those bats need to be removed from the game. That is why they instituted the change. Not to get rid of older models for which their were newer better models.

And it worked exactly as NCAA designed it to work. Phenix is gone, the hot Louisville Slugger gone, the Nike bat gone. Yet they still being played in ASA.

[jonriv]

It was pure economics with the Phenix- why do anything for a product you no longer sell and is out of warranty??? duh...

The Phenix was not the only bat they didd not submit- in fact they did not submit ANY of their out of production bats. Are you saying the Medusa is too hot???!!!! Frankly- I did not see much difference in the Phenix and the CF4 my daughter my daughter hit with- in fact she thinks she has more pop with the new CF5 the school gave her

I am happy the Phenix was considered HOT- I sold it for twice what I paid for it on ebay


AI- I think you are hunting the wrong conspiracy- I would agree that there were some not presented because tehy would not pass- I think far more were not presented because "new and Improved" models were in the inventory that needed to be sold

There is no conspiracy. Merely stating what ASA said they were doing. Take a moment and read their statement. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/2010/2011_Bat_Compliance_Final.pdf They say they have a problem with hot bats, and those bats need to be removed from the game. That is why they instituted the change. Not to get rid of older models for which their were newer better models.

And it worked exactly as NCAA designed it to work. Phenix is gone, the hot Louisville Slugger gone, the Nike bat gone. Yet they still being played in ASA.

The NCAA did not do it to remove older models- but the MFG used it as a way of selling new models. As I said before- most of the bats that are not on the list are not hot- just old. The MFGs had no incentive to offer not in production bats.

I am curious to why PGF is not following NCAA standards-since I thought one of their goals and their biggest selling points is as a recruiting tool. Why play with a bat you will not be able to play with at the next level?

[AlwaysImprove]

It was pure economics with the Phenix- why do anything for a product you no longer sell and is out of warranty??? duh...

The Phenix was not the only bat they didd not submit- in fact they did not submit ANY of their out of production bats. Are you saying the Medusa is too hot???!!!! Frankly- I did not see much difference in the Phenix and the CF4 my daughter my daughter hit with- in fact she thinks she has more pop with the new CF5 the school gave her

I am happy the Phenix was considered HOT- I sold it for twice what I paid for it on ebay


AI- I think you are hunting the wrong conspiracy- I would agree that there were some not presented because tehy would not pass- I think far more were not presented because "new and Improved" models were in the inventory that needed to be sold

There is no conspiracy. Merely stating what ASA said they were doing. Take a moment and read their statement. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/2010/2011_Bat_Compliance_Final.pdf They say they have a problem with hot bats, and those bats need to be removed from the game. That is why they instituted the change. Not to get rid of older models for which their were newer better models.

And it worked exactly as NCAA designed it to work. Phenix is gone, the hot Louisville Slugger gone, the Nike bat gone. Yet they still being played in ASA.

The NCAA did not do it to remove older models- but the MFG used it as a way of selling new models. As I said before- most of the bats that are not on the list are not hot- just old. The MFGs had no incentive to offer not in production bats.

I am curious to why PGF is not following NCAA standards-since I thought one of their goals and their biggest selling points is as a recruiting tool. Why play with a bat you will not be able to play with at the next level?

So you are saying this statement is not in the document I posted:
"The NCAA 2011 Approved Softball Bat List attempts to limit the number of allowable bat models to those consistent with the Softball Rules Committee’s core values of ensuring fair and equitable competition between teams, supporting the delicate balance of offense and defense within the game, and maintaining vigilance regarding both student-athlete safety and risk minimization."
or that
"Review of the barrel compression test (BCT) data and the Washington State University (WSU) lab results from the 2010 season by the NCAA Softball Rules Committee. Notification sent to institutions and manufacturers whose bats tested 98 mph or faster."

When I read these statements, I get the sense that NCAA was reviewing lots of BCT data and WSU testing data of bats coming from the field. They were finding a significant number above of the 98mph spec. So many, the the delicate balance of offense and defense was no longer equitable and were out of bounds of safety and risk. Therefore they instituted this program to rid the game of those bats.

This correlated exactly to what fans were seeing the game. Arguing otherwise just goes against a mountain of evidence and statements that are clearly evident.

Perhaps PGF is not adopting NCAA bat list cause they don't want to make ASA look bad!