jonriv wrote:Umpsteve- AI is refering to the Nike Bats that UCLA used prior to 2011(They no longer use) and the older (Easton?) bats that the University of Hawaii used
2011 Standard
Prior to the start of the 2011 softball season, the NCAA instituted a rule that no bat may have a speed rating higher than 98 mph, meaning 98 mph is the maximum speed that the ball may come off the bat. This came after a dramatic increase in home run totals across college softball in 2010. The University of Hawaii softball team hit 158 home runs that season, beating the previous team record by 24. Bat testers found that the speed of the softball off the bat often exceeded 104 MPH, so the NCAA decided to institute the change.
Read more:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/46882 ... RuHB/quote]
http://www.livestrong.com/article/46882 ... -softball/To AI's point-These bats are still legal in ASA and PGF
Complaints from other schools prompted NCAA action. Bat MFGs pull their bats before they reach the three strike level.
First off, you are overlooking the point. "the Nike Bats that UCLA used prior to 2011(They no longer use) and the older (Easton?) bats that the University of Hawaii used" is still not specifying a bat model. And, as you know, those bats have not failed the definition of "hot" bats. AI hasn't named one bat model because no such model exists. We have his opinion.
Second, those bats to which you refer are not and were not ever available to the general public. Who cares what some illegal bat roller tells you to use to start with to make an illegal bat; the reason the other coaches were outraged and the NCAA took action was because it was well known that these particular bats were a "special" production line, and Candrea and others were at a disadvantage because THEY weren't getting the same bats available to THEM.
Yes, some tested above 98; up to 104. Those were confiscated, no longer exist, aren't publicly available. Every bat was taken from those teams after the postseason testing proved the facts. This is the same as painting an illegal bat with a legal bat's holo; the legal bat that it looks like isn't made illegal or hit by that apparent resemblance.
But AI doesn't want to know the truth, he wants to claim to
KNOW without possession of any facts. I have repeatedly asked him to support with even one bat model what he keeps claiming exists, but he can't. So despite his continuing rhetoric with babble instead of facts or actual evidence, let me state:
1) There are no bats in ASA, NFHS or even his beloved PGF that meet the contractual definition of illegally hot for any approved softball agency.
2) No current bat model in ANY of those agencies using the ASA bat standard has ever tested in WSU lab tests with the appropriate number of individual model failures to be declared "hot" by any of those agencies, OR by NCAA; except those already and currently listed on the ASA Non-Approved Bat List, making them NOT usable in ASA, NFHS, or PGF play.
3) Without evidence to support that any agency
KNOWS that an unsafe or otherwise "hot" bat is still on any approved bat list, AI's speculation that some ambulance chaser can (and will, ultimately) use that as a cause of action is pointless, unfounded, and even possibly actionable on it's own as defamatory and libelous.
4) Despite knowing he has no evidence to support any of his allegations, he continues to insist that to not agree with him and to
KNOW like he does means others are ignoring facts (which he has yet to produce).
Okay, I'm done. No further response on the topic, he has no facts to refute any of what is stated above and throughout this thread, and his straw man efforts at circular proof are proven pointless.
But some one else give him a cracker. It is clear he needs one.