Ethics of College Coaches being paid by bat companies

I wouldn't call it unethical, just a business deal, but I will say thank the Lord above Bum, Jr. doesn't have to deal with kiddie bats anymore.  Wood is wonderful.

A man after my own heart. 

Unfortunately it will take time for H.S. and college coaches to not worry about winning and worry about the development of their players. 

I don't agree with this topic at all.  If it is a problem, than all college sports would be in trouble because they are sponsored by apparel companies, shoe companies, other equipment companies, etc.  Why should the bat manufacturers be any different?

Not to be argumentative however I don't quite understand this logic...other than maybe minor league teams that are in place to develop players for the Parent club why would any coach not worry about winning?  

I'm all for wood bats being used and I agree that development of players is important however why should a high school coach (or college for that matter) care about developing a player to hit with wood bats?  At this point a VERY small percentage of high school and college players will be required to use wood in the professional ranks.

Many college coaches have a sincere interest in and are quite accomplished at developing their players; but, not one is going to invite any of their players to choose between wood and metal bats. Nor are they going to recommend that their programs embrace wood when their competitors are hitting with metal. From their perspective, even the BBCOR bat is superior offensively to the wood bat, and they're going to demand that their players hit with the better bat.

After all, their livelihoods, ultimately, depend upon the approval of their bosses, the Athletic Directors; and Athletic Directors are routinely expected to produce winning programs. So, if you think that it's just a matter of time until these "misguided" people who run baseball programs and athletic departments see the error of their ways and chuck the metal bats in favor of wood, you're setting yourself up for a long-term wait.

The large majority of collegiate summer leagues use wood. The college coaches are going to continue to look upon those summer months as the period when their players have an opportunity to show what they can do with wood.

Meanwhile, if you're going to start singling out college coaches and their programs for benefiting from bat manufacturers' support, you'd better be prepared to start applying it to a whole slew of professions and products. Paid endorsements have been a foundation for the marketing of a wide variety of products forever, and that's never going to change.

No one is getting hurt or slighted here. All of the manufacturers involved produce quality bats; and, in keeping with the underlying axiom that coaches have to win to keep their jobs, manufacturers that produce quality bats are going to get chosen to provide their products to individual programs.

Prepster- Great post as always.

Doughnutman- I don't know what bat contracts have to do with wood vs. metal. It's an entirely different topic of conversation.

I'm in favor of wood, always will be.  Might never happen in HS or college.  Too much money involved.  

That said most of the major colleges have contracts with Nike, UA, Adidas, etc. for equipment, shoes and uniforms.  Nothing wrong with that IMO.  

Many of the top bat companies manufacture both wood and metal bats.  There's just more profit in the metal bats.  If they want to pay coaches, that's great.  

Metal bats don't ruin the game.  They are just different.  They are switching to the flat seam ball.  It appears that part of the reasoning is to increase offensive production.  Switching to wood would decrease offensive production.

i am for wood, but it's a great game with or without it. MLB scouts would rather see players hit with wood.  However sometimes you have to do with what you have. In college and HS that is watching players hit with metal bats. 

For sure, there is nothing wrong with college coaches getting endorsement deals.  Professional athletes get endorsement deals.  Might not be as much, but if they switched to wood, the wood bat people would still offer endorsement deals.  They will always want the top programs using their products. Guess it's just marketing strategy.  

The conventional wisdom is that the economic power of the bat manufacturers will perpetually keep non-wood bats in the HS and college game. It's nice to be able to keep that big barrier to entry into that market and keep competitors out. Anyone with a lathe and a garage can start a wood bat company, not so much with non-wood (yes, I'm over-simplifying - making marketable wood bats takes more than that, but a whole lot less than setting up to make non-wood bats).

The only way this changes is if an organization with a vested interest in HS and college baseball with MORE economic power gets involved...

With changes in draft rules which funnel more players to the college game, and download player development to colleges, that organization could be Major League Baseball. There already is movement towards a closer working relationship between NCAA and MLB, maybe an all-wood college game will eventually come from that partnership... 

I guess what I'm getting at is this; If MLB scouts REALLY want to see college players hit with wood, they just need to get MLB to pay colleges more money to hit with wood than manufacturers pay them not to.

I would suppose one of the reasons Bryce Harper went to a junior college wood bat league instead of a D1 powerhouse is to prove his worth with wood and show the MLB what he could do. 

I don't think DI was ever a consideration for Bryce Harper, since his plan was to be draft-eligible after one year at a JC.  Having a wood bat JC team right in his own backyard was pretty amazing.  Hard to believe that he was just 17 years old at the time, and went to the JCWS.

Not sure I understand the ethics question.  If the issue is a coach forcing his players to use an inferior bat because he penned a sweet deal with the manufacturer, I would say he's cutting his own throat.  Are you saying that the school should get that money?  The athletes?

I don't have a problem with this type of endorsement, where the party being paid is actually using the product.  Now when Shaq tells me he fits comfortably inside his tiny Buick... that's a different story.

I believe it is an ethical question because the bat they use is based on financial gain for the coach. Not what is best or safest(wood) or what helps to develop their players. Which bat are they going to have their players use? 100K contract bat or 150K contract bat? The decisions seem to be based soley on what they can put in their pockets. They claim to be old school. They want their players to play old school. There is no way they would ever vote for wood.

I agree with others.  A HC is not going to contract with a bat company if he feels the bats are inferior from a performance standpoint.  His primary objective and what he is graded on largely is wins.  The free bats and other benefits go a long way toward helping with the sports budget issues.  Each of the major manufacturers offer multiple styles with different balances, etc., and they all have bats that perform well. 

Coaches do whats best for the team. Several years ago UNC signed a huge bat deal with Nike. A couple of years later it was canceled when they decided that bats were inferior. Four or five years ago Akadema made a big push into the baseball equipment market. Temple signed with them for bats. After a year of the players complaining about the bats they opted out.

The actual details of the UNC situation vary a little from RJM's summary, but his basic point still stands.

Nike has been the sole supplier of all athletic equipment and uniforms to all 28 of UNC's varsity sports for quite a few years. It had been an exclusive contract, and Nike was quite diligent in enforcing its exclusivity there.

A relative newcomer to the metal bat market, Nike required that UNC and all other schools' baseball teams use Nike bats once they entered the market. Almost immediately, players and coaches from all Nike-equipped schools began to complain about the bats being provided.

At first, Nike was unrelenting in its requirement; while it worked over the course of several years to improve its bats. Finally, several years ago, Nike announced that it was releasing UNC and all other college baseball programs it supported from the requirement that they use their bats.

During the Fall and Spring seasons of 2011-2012 (the first following Nike's release), UNC players were allowed to hit with their choice of bats; and 4 or 5 bat companies provided bats for them to use. Then, following another Fall season of bat choice, the decision was made to endorse Hillerich & Bradsby's "Louisville Slugger" brand for the 2013 and ensuing seasons. While UNC players had used a number of different companies' bats, the H&B bats seemed to get the most use by them.

All I know, is that as a parent who bought piles of cleats, sliders, undershirts, gloves, batting gloves, warm-up jackets, bats, etc, etc, etc from T-ball through HS, I'm actually pretty happy we/he haven't had to buy a single piece of baseball equipment in now our son's Junior year of college.  And that's at a D3 school. 

College sports is big business,  don't you get that. It is not unethical to endorse any product, though I believe that decisions are made individually based upon what is best for that program.

BTW,  many coaches did not particularly like the change in new bats. The new bats changed the college game, so why would anyone think that they would endorse wood.

Read the link.

http://www.thestate.com/2013/0...-throw-colleges.html

The job of the college coach is to win and fill seats, if he so desires to develop a player for the next level that is his choice, he's not getting paid to do that.

I would like to know what really bothers those that feel this is unethical, lack of ethics or lack of player production?

Actually these bats are not really "free" , yes free to the players and the program. However the coaches do get paid for endorsing a companies product and has to be declared in their annual salary.

D 1 baseball programs cost a lot of money, and earn very little--essentially, baseball is non-revenue sport.  D 1 baseball relies on the free equipment and the payments (which can be considerable) to the coaches.

There are many big issues in college sports, and a few in college baseball.  This ain't one of them IMHO.

+1

I don't have time to address everything, but a couple of you are helping my argument. On the UNC front with NIKE, how many years did they stick with an inferior product? They could have broke the contract. But that would have taken money out of there pockets. Another company might have been able to step in for a big time school like UNC. Could they have paid the coaches more money? Doubtful. Improved performance on the field helps a program more than anything else I know of. And they gave it away for short term $$.

ANd the question of development? Is there any coach in all of baseball that doesn't have the goal of improving players? Is there really a college coach out there who wants his players to not improve over the 3 years they spend in the program? That really doesn't hold any weight IMO.

I'll go a step further.  The summer collegiate leagues with wood bats prepared my son for professional baseball.  College was about getting a degree and buying the necessary time.  I know you will disagree with this, TPM and others, and that's okay.  That is just my son's experience.

Prepster, I know you son is a coach a VT. There is a 2013 from our area that is there as a freshman. Really good hitter. Has used wood for last 2 year (since BBCOR has been required) in HS and summer. Last summer he was using the BBCOR because his college coach told him too . Just an intersting tidbit to validate what you are saying

Last question. Why are they so eager to change to pro style balls and so resistant to pro style bats?

Because coaches don't get paid to sponsor balls?  

Because college baseball is not pro ball.  College baseball is all about the long ball.

Changing the balls may help to balance what is missing, HR.

Maybe some day your son will get to play the game at the pro level and you understand the difference. 

A very good friend of mine who works at a major university told me that last 2 years attendance for games was down, so many schools are moving the plate and the mound out further due to lack of HR production with the new bat.

Did you read the article I posted? The NCAA has made a decision to go with this change.

FWIW, wood bats are not particularly economical, ask any minor leaguer that has to pay for replacement, they are not supplied by the team.

May I ask, what really is your agenda?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, Doughnutman.

The requirement that UNC use only Nike bats at the time of their introduction was one that came from a university-wide contract; one involving all 28 varsity sports. The bat provision, therefore, was but a small part of a much larger contract; from a company that tends to produce high quality equipment and apparel for the vast majority of sports it supplies. The bat's shortcomings were considered anomalous.

I hope that it was simply that I failed to explain the context adequately because if you think that a major university is going to jeopardize a major contract of that sort by breaking what amounts to a small portion of it, your philosophical position has taken you into a world that's completely separated from reality.

Nothing about the UNC story supports your position in any way. In fact, they ended up endorsing a bat company that produced one of several bats preferred by a number of the players once given the opportunity.

So if a player, besides a pitcher, thinks he has a shot at the pro's he should find another avenue than college? 

If a player (and/or his parents) considers himself the next coming of Bryce Harper, then, college probably doesn't need to be considered; at least, not out of high school. However, the "Bryce Harpers" of the sport are literally one in many thousands compared to the universe of high school baseball players in this country.

For the large majority of the rest, college would seem to be a path that ought to be explored; especially since only a small fraction of all college players will ever receive a paycheck from a professional baseball club.

College baseball has been an important stepping stone to professional baseball for some of its participants (despite the fact that they hit with the infamous metal bat). However, to view it simply as a minor-minor league is to deny the probabilities; as well as the realities of life following one's playing days.

Pro balls = more offense

Pro bats = less offense

Objective is more offense.

I'm with everyone else here... confused by some of your arguments and statements.  Oh well, much more interesting when everyone has different opinions I guess.

Understand first and foremost that baseball programs do not pay for themselves.  So there is always a need to find sponsorships, etc.  Even if all you get is free gear, every bit helps.

Be thankful that someone is making this all happen.  Otherwise, your favorite sport would suffer.

BTW, if the rule were for wood bats, the situation would be no different.

And also, bear in mind the reason why amateur ball originally shifted to metal was to save money.  While one metal bat costs more than one wood bat, wood bats break and have to be replaced repeatedly.  Over the course of a season, metal is cheaper.

The shift was sped along by the fire that wiped out a lot of H&B's stock of seasoned lumber in the early 1970's.  That's an historical footnote now, because that stock has had ample time to recover.  But if you outlawed metal, you'd have to phase it in, because due to current levels of market demand, you'd quickly discover that it would take years to develop a sufficient pipeline of seasoned (aged) timber.  You'd have to do something like start at tee ball and work upwards, or start at college and work backwards.

I would also think it would be pretty unfair to say to companies who've invested a lot of capital in producing metal bats, "We just decided to vote you out of business overnight."  Remember, they only make those bats because we wanted them.  So think about everyone who'd be affected by these kinds of decisions.

I think the new ball is a great idea... Anything that will provide more exposure and fun would be great in my eyes...

I want baseball to prosper, it sickens me that the this great game has become a second-fiddle sport in the eyes of the NCAA... 11.5 scholarships is a freaking joke...

I guess their just too busy cracking down on other things:

http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/ncaa-church-league-game-disqualifies-centennial-gr/nbjBR/

Here is my opinion.

This is just another post to discredit coaches, why? 

College coaches work so hard and get paid so little. If they are able to make money from camps, or from endorsements then all the more power to them. Do not assume because a coach receives money from a bat company he is taking the largest endorsement to put in his bank account.

Prepster's post was accurate, there are some programs that have to accept certain sponsor's equipment whether they want to or not, not sure why that is so hard to understand.  As a college pitcher my son had to use the glove that was given to him, as a starting pitcher, and he was delighted!  He learned to adjust.

I often find that people that come here with these types of  issues (questioning coaches ethics) ususlaly have an issue going on with something other than this is just their opinion.

My son pitched for years and he had to learn how to overcome the power of the metal bat.  We never complained.  Now batters have to learn to adjust, which they have had to do anyway going from HS ball to college or straight to proball.

If I am wrong then tell me so, but please let us know what the real issue is.

College is the #1 stepping stone to professional baseball.  Every year, more college players are drafted than high school players.  There is no better avenue if you live in this country.

Most every player drafted has something in common.  Nearly every draft pick comes from a high school or a college.  Both use metal bats, other than a few cases.

So even though many of us prefer wood bats, using metal bats hasn't hurt the game. It just causes hitters, and to some degree pitchers, to make an adjustment. It's one of many adjustments a player has to make in order to be successful.

All that said, I still would like to see wood used in HS and college.  However, I understand the reasons why that hasn't happened. No doubt, endorsement money is one of those reasons, but it is far from the only reason. The majority of coaches in college and all the high school coaches don't get any endorsement money. 

Personally I'm for switching to wood in some form. What I don't understand is the current situation where the coach (Head Coach only?) is paid by company X for using their bats. I must be missing the logic. The coach doesn't "use" the bats, the players do. Why the coach benefits escapes me. What does make sense to me is that said money goes into the baseball program to directly further benefit the kids.

I'm sure I've missed some aspects of the situation so please bring me up to date.

No kidding!

Bolts,

Unbelievable.

The big issue is that they could not prove that Manzel took money.  Athletes sign autographs all of the time, I don't think there was anything that said that you can't, even in quantities.  In Omaha, son sat at a table and people lined up for an hour for each team to have them sign all sorts of things, and they did show up and still do on ebay. They also had a session where all type of items were on a table and they all had to sign, balls jerseys, bases, posters, etc.

I can't speak for Doughnutman but I would reverse the question and ask what is the agenda of colleges and high school not to go to wood?  

I'm trying to think of another sport that doesn't use the same equipment as the pro's.  

I think that PG laid it out perfectly, its about making adjustments.

Really only the big programs get the endorsements. I do know that some coaches  use that money to better their programs.

Don't get me wrong I am 100% in favor of wood, but accusations are unfair.

I think many of the reasons have been laid out, don't you read all of the posts?

My agenda is clear. I hate metal bats. I also think that the only purpose of metal bats is to make money for coaches and bat companies. I was told (i do not know it for a fact) that lower level MiLB allow composites. Composites last longer than metal IMO. Longer equals cheaper. Plus a one year warranty.

As I look into my crystal ball, I see a problem for the new balls. If they travel farther, doesn't it mean that they go faster? It will make BBCOR closer to BESR results. More injuries to players(especially pitchers). When will they force BBCOR to  be dumbed down to lower results? Will it come to a point where wood is actually superior to metal?

What will college coaches and bat companies do then?  

The flatter seams don't effect the exit velocity of the ball off the bat.

Comebackers will not be faster.

But, on a long fly ball, the flatter seams cause less drag, allowing it to fly farther.

HIgh school and college baseball agendas are simple. Metal bats rarely break. If they do they are warrantied. It costs less to equip a team with metal bats.

High school, college and pro footballs are not the same. They have different weights and shapes.

Pro bats have to be one piece of solid wood. Period.  A college player may go through one BBCR bat in a season a pro player many, many, many, many wood bats.   Some guys leave the game if they do not have an agent or a bat endorsement which is hard to get on your own. As a pro pitcher in the national league, my son had to pay for his bat, hitters have to pay for gloves.

Teams do not give out equipment to players.

Why would they allow a composite bat if these guys need to learn how to successfully hit like major leaguers?

Do you think that if they went to wood they wouldn't take endorsements?

I am over this topic when you  have a better reason ( other than to trash coaches) I will listen!

The new balls don't come off the bat any faster. But due to flatter seams, less wind resistance helps them carry further.

"I can't speak for Doughnutman but I would reverse the question and ask what is the agenda of colleges and high school not to go to wood?  

I'm trying to think of another sport that doesn't use the same equipment as the pro's"

IMO there is way too much emphasis on College and Pro.  Only the very best of the best play past high school.  For the vast majority of kids who laced up spikes and played a game they love, High School is it. What about these kids?  Do you think the kids will get together in 20 years and brag about the shot hit to the warning track against their rival? Let that ball travel and extra 20 feet off a metal bat and it is now a game winning home run. This actually happened last year at my sons high school. It is the only home run the kid EVER hit.

    Let the pros have wood. Heck let the colleges have wood.  But slow down a little and think about the much bigger picture.  There is much more at stake here than just wood vs. metal.  There are lots and lots of memories yet to be made.  And some of them will definitely last a lifetime.

Examples of bat contracts (please note that some are multi-sport agreements):

FREE STUFF

As part of their bat endorse­ment contracts, SEC schools re­ceive free equipment and ap­parel from manufacturers. For instance, here's what Florida, the nation's No. 4 team, re­ceives from Easton every year. It's valued at $85,752.

> 110 aluminum bats

> 72 wooden bats

> 20 youth bats

> 5 fungo bats

> 50 fielding gloves

> 150 batting gloves

> 100 wristbands

> 45 equipment bags

> 45 travel bags

> 5 sets of catcher gear

> 5 sets of knee savers

> 5 sets of catcher bags

> 20 sets of helmets

> 1,500 T-shirts

> 10 batting tees

> 5 dozen Incrediballs

> 50 sunglasses.

Still?  Are you even reading any of the posts?

Nice stuff Freddy, only one coach received the money directly.  The money went into the programs. Where did the OP get the info that they are all taking money to make themselves richer. Maybe the same person with the composite bats for lower level milb?

I am with you cabbagedad, don't they read the posts?

http://www.oregonlive.com/duck..._coach_george_h.html

Does Nike overcompensate Oregon coaches as support for the local program? 150K whether they use Nike bats or not seems generous. I'd like to be paid for not wearing Nikes. But I guess I'll have to work that out with the local company, New Balance. I don't wear their stuff either.

How greedy of him to accept such an offer!

Since publication of Freddy's list, the University of Georgia has changed bat suppliers. Like UNC, they left Nike once released from their multi-sport contract.

I also have to believe that Chad Holbrook is now the beneficiary of South Carolina's bat contract.

So with that reasoning it shouldn't be an issue if my son wants to swing a wood bat during high school.

However, that is not the main reason I am given time after time when I advocate wood bats in high school. 

The reason is it will lessen productivity and the player that swings wood is selfish for not helping the team.  

Coaches want an edge, obviously, if available.  If PED's were legal I would bet that some coaches would be having their players taking them. 

I too see nothing 'unethical' about coaches being paid to use a brand of equipment.  Shoes, bats, gloves, uniforms...all fine by me.

I'd guess nearly all of us would rather watch the game with wood, but metal doesn't come close to ruining the game for me.

I am not following how using the same legal equipment as another team gives you an edge?

The main reason for using metal is the durability as stated by previous posters.

Wood is the best of course, but clearly not affordable for HS teams and many HS parents.

Even when using wood in the offseason I see a lot of players taping up the bat, I assume to help reduce the chance of it breaking.

No issues with enorsement deals, in my opinion the companies should pay more.  How many bats have been bought because a team was using them in the CWS?  I am sure thousands.

Last year Nike let EVERY school out of their bat deal, because they were underperforming and the coaches were complaining about having an unfair disadvantage... Nike gets their money's worth through exposure on uni's, gloves, shoes and other equipment still...

Does anybody have a reason to use metal bats that aren't financial reasons? Player development? Safety? Aesthetics? They look cool? Anything?

All I see are bat companies and programs/coaches making money off of the bats. And that is why I think they are unethical. (Besides the fact that I hate them. Metal bats that is.) 

"I also think that the only purpose of metal bats is to make money for coaches and bat companies"

If you think that, you are engaging in conjecture, when the actual facts are readily available to you. 

It's sometimes said that we should respect everyone's opinion.  I disagree.  When facts alone don't answer questions, when you have to apply value systems that may differ from one culture to the next or from one person to the next, then you respect the differences.  When an opinion is based purely on bias and willfully ignores factual information to the contrary, it is not worthy of respect.

The intention of those who make metal bats is to meet a demand that existed and continues to exist with or without them, and in so doing, to earn a profit.  (This being America and all.)  Let's not treat these guys like drug dealers or something.  If you want to know why metal bats are made, you have to ask why the buyers wanted them in the first place, and why they continue to want them now.

When I first started in youth baseball in the late 1960's, every Little League team was given a bag full of wood bats that in many cases were years old.  Almost all were H&B Louisville Sluggers.  They tended to have thicker handles than today's versions.  As young pitchers seldom threw very hard back then, they didn't break all that often, so they were around year to year for the most part.  But even then, they had to be replaced from time to time.

Some time in the early 1970's, H&B suffered a fire that severely depleted their stock of aging raw timber.  (You may not know this, but the bats you buy weren't trees last week.  They are aged for years.)  When supply is constricted, prices rise so that the supply is effectively rationed.  MLB teams got first pick, MiLB teams next, and before you knew it, amateur teams were scrambling to find new sources.  I remember a startup company called Hannah ended up supplying most of our youth bats.  Turns out they used timber that was not adequately cured, and they broke like balsa wood.  Youth programs and others soon found their budgets being busted by the need to (a) pay spiked prices for bats and (b) also replace them much more often.

What followed was a series of attempts to manufacture an artificial bat.  Originally, the effort was to replicate the wood bat in shape, weight and weight distribution, and impact on the ball.  We had some really clunky early model metal bats.  Who here remembers the ill-fated fiberglass bats?  They looked like they were carved from soap, and they ultimately were abandoned when it turned out they would shatter if used in cold temperatures.  (Yikes!)

Around that same time, Prince racquets were taking over tennis, so it was only natural that, freed from the limits of wood, competition led manufacturers to start engineering their metal bats with alloys designed to enhance their results.  They got stronger, whippier, and lighter all at the same time.  This is why CWS scores started getting lopsided.  That and concerns about player safety have led to repeated rounds of metal bat guidelines, then restrictions. 

Metal bats were first made because they were sorely needed.  They got more pro-offense because that was where player demand took them.  They got more pro-defense when the governing bodies stepped in to restore balance in the game and to bring a safety perspective. 

Throughout the entire 40-year period, they have consistently offered a more affordable option to use of wood.  They are the proverbial "better mousetrap" in many ways.

As for coaches taking money:  This has been going on since Jim Valvano took big-time shoe money and even well before that.  Everyone I know would like to have the ability to command high income.  Everyone I know would take income willingly offered to them in an honest business transaction.  (Some will even be dishonest to do it, but here we are dealing with a common promotional arrangement no different from seeing Justin Timberlake sell us Pepsi.)  When people start saying snarky things just because someone else is making money, I think it speaks more to envy than to anything rational.

Yes, again, dozens of reasons have been cited in this thread, including some of the ones you just used to answer your own question. 

I know, you must have accidentally blocked all of our replies.

Either that or you are using reverse psychology and trying to drum up rabid support for your newly launched metal bat company.

Midlo - enjoyed your post.

Midlo Dad,

Thanks for the well thought out reply. Interesting. Not to be to much of a contrarian, but there is not a need for them now. I understand at the lower levels. A little. But you can use a Baum or any other high end composite bat that will last well over a baseball season and is cheaper by $200. I do not work for any bat company. I just do not see any reason for metal in College besides profit and greed. Grown men should use wood. 

I understand. But Horton is getting paid for the bat deal even after Oregon opted out. Nike is based in Oregon. 

I read a couple of years ago if metal was banned the demand for wood bats given the supply would drive wood bats near the price of metal bats ... plus they break.

...that and compensating for all of the free bats that the universities will get and Doughnutman will then be spending $350 for a wood bat.

Composites gentlemen. Besides Mizuno, they rarely break.They typically last over a year with constant use. Metals last a season at the most.

We started using wood at all our events many years ago.  At that time it was new to all amateur players.  Then over the years wood bats became more popular.  Pretty much everyone in the wood bat business has contacted us to partner.  So we know quite a bit about the wood bat business from the old strictly ash bats to the newer maple bats.

When we started there was one major market for wood bats... Professional Baseball!  There were very few manufacturing wood bats.  Now days there are wood bat companies all over the place and new ones popping up all the time.

In the past there was lower demand but the prices were reasonable.  We have noticed the prices have been increasing for quality wood bats.  Surely some of that has to do with the demand. 

Point is... I can't argue the point when and if the wood replaces metal... I'm guessing the cost would go up.  And people will have no choice about what they need to buy.  Doesn't change my mind regarding using wood, but it sure is something to think about. Maybe someday that wood bat might cost as much as your favorite rocking chair.

Then again, maybe someday that special metal bat will cost as much as the car you drive.

Here is an article I found written a few years back.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/m...ll-improve-the-game/

As far as composite bats, I do believe that some coaches accused others of rolling. Here is another article I find interesting.

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/NCAA-stats.html

Anyway, pretty much explains why wood isn't used, and nothing in the article refers to coaches using one type over another due to money in their pocket.

Does that apply to Baum Bats? My son played with them in a wood bat JUCO league 10+ years ago and they lasted for several years before succumbing to the beating. (I am not affiliated with any bat manufacturers)

Doughnutman,

This thread regarding which metal bat to choose illustrates the chain of behaviors that leads to colleges being sponsored to use metal bats.

The main market for metal bats is the youth market, and players/parents want to get the "best" bat, which primarily means durable pop.  So the bat companies make these bats, and of course they compete to get each player's money.  Consequently. the bat companies decorate the bats well and employ a variety of advertising approaches, including sponsoring college baseball teams.  In effect, youth baseball players subsidize college baseball. Without the youth market, there would be no contracts with colleges regarding bats.

If/when the entire baseball world switches to wood or or other solid core bats, the perceived performance difference among bats will decrease.  Perhaps the bat companies will start marketing special "Brazilian cherrywood" bats or come up with some other mechanism to charge a premium, but more likely the subsidy to colleges will end up being lower.

I believe they will switch to wood and wood composites. the only thing holding it back is bat companies and the coaches/programs that profit. Baum bats last for years.

How long do you think it will take for the lawsuits to start rolling in from use of the new balls? I think it will take 3 pitchers to get hurt. At any level. I applaud the leagues that have already changed. They will all change once it happens. Financial penalties will change the market just like the threat of it changed the BESR market. If the coaches cared they would vote to change now. Instead it will take injured players to make a difference just like it did with BESR.

A complete lack of ethics.

This has become laughable (as if it hadn't already).

It's a well established fact that the new ball's exit velocity is identical to the current one's. In other words, it doesn't come off of the bat any faster. As others have tried to explain here, the 20-25 foot advantage when hit squarely comes from the ball's improved aerodynamics. 

This isn't opinion. It's an irrefutable fact. You can't contort those physical characteristics to make them fit your vendetta's objective.

Even a non-engineering type like me can understand this. Why can't you?

There's no evil conspiracy lurking, waiting for the next personal injury lawyer to send everyone fleeing to Baum bats and ruin the conniving meanies in the athletic department offices.

We all get it, Doughnutman. You hate metal bats, and you'll construct whatever preposterous theories you can to undermine their existence.

We need to move on to real life issues.

Thanks for finding that, I was looking.

This really has become laughable.

The discussion actually began in "College Ball Change".

Wood bats break for a reason, in pro ball you might see one or two broken bats in a game.  Not as often with lower levels.  The game is a completely different animal, most people, don't understand there are differences.

There are reasons why the composite bats aren't used in most college programs, but I think that DM is just too stubborn to admit that these points are better than his (and his endorsement of Baum Bats).

As stated a few times in that topic, you don't see as many broken bats because of different factors not found in the amateur game as one does see in the pro game.

Donutman's son is at a JUCO using a composite, not sure what the issue is.

BTW, my sons former college teammate was severly hurt with a shattered bat that pierced his chest missing his heart in a MLB game coming in from third on a play.

Professional players learn from early on about shattered bat, and the dangers they create. I do hope that before each game instruction is given, not that you see it too often in the lower levels, but it's good to be rather safe than sorry.

DM hope that your son does well and gets a chance to play proball. Also hope that he is good enough to have an agent or a big signing bonus to help pay for his bats, because on a minor leaguer salary, most can't afford it, they are not supplied by the team.

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to argue against wood?  

What part about the exit velocity staying the same, do you not understand??  You should do your research before you start spouting off false conspiracy theories, accusations of unethical behavior, etc.  You sound like a person who has serious issues...

Don't confuse someon'es passion for a subject for a defective mental state.  You should apologize. 

I agree with the wood thing 100%.

This wasn't about a passion but an accusation towards some.

Baseball is a big business, on every level. Business means that someone profits in some way.

Many of us know people in the business at every level and some who make some really nice money at it (in fact millions).

But to say the coaches are unethical for taking endorsements from bat companies is just plain ridiculous and those statements do have to make one wonder what really is the issue.

And I am not apologizing for the above.

No apologies needed. I do have issues, who doesn't? But I have very thick skin.

I've seen several instances where the alternative to the current metal bats being used in college is stated simply as "wood" and then the breakage and resulting cost factors are used as justification of maintaining the status quo. There is another viable category available that is conveniently ignored which is the "composite wood" bats which provide a nice middle ground. I use Baum as an example because I am familiar with it's use through my son. These bats perform much like wood while possessing the "reduced breakage" aspect of the current metal bats in use. And if used properly they can realistically be expected to last a couple years. Cost wise buying one will run $216 (includes shipping) which prorates to $108/year (over a 2 year period). If purchased in groups of 6 the cost averages out to $81/year (over a 2 year period). This has to be cheaper than the current metal bats while maintaining the integrity and safety of the game.

I am not affiliated with any bat manufacturers.

Right now, I can get last year's Louisville Slugger Omaha BBCOR metal bat, which performs quite well, for anywhere between $99 and $119 and I can find any size made.

And RJM's statement about the potential for cost of wood bats to approach that of metal is not a "scrape the barrel" remark.  While that price ultimately may not quite reach the top range of metal bats, it can certainly come much closer with more demand.   I am in the industry and I can tell you that if College and HS were to switch to wood, availability of quality wood would become a HUGE issue.  Prices would go up significantly for GOOD wood bats.  Even then, they still break, so the net cost vs metal becomes even less attractive and less affordable for school programs that have to pay for them.   

I love wood bats but the abundance of factual info others have provided on this thread has great merit... as does the abundance of factual info that negates the "complete lack of ethics" stance and the info regarding the ball change.  So why would Ryno or others have to apologize for questioning the thought process of someone who continues to ignore piles of facts placed in their lap?

Having passion is one thing.  making unsubstantiated claims of unethical behavior on the part of College Coaches is entirely another. He should apologize...

Does your use of the term "wood" include the "composite wood" bats I mention in the post just prior to yours?

I'm not arguing against wood. I prefer wood. I'm stating facts on why things are the way they are.

Does anyone consider this unethical?

All doctors have a choice of two antibiotics. Both cure strep. Antibiotic A works a hair faster, is more expensive for the patient and has been known to cause reactions in .005% of the people that take it. Antibiotic B works a hair slower, costs less for the patient, and has been known to cause reactions in .003% of the population.

Drug A buys the doctors a trip to Cancun and signs them to a 50K yearly contract..

Drug B sends them a Holiday card.

The doctors have to vote which drug will be used by all of the doctors in the US.

Doctors vote for Drug A.

Is this allright?

I don't know about your doctor but mine prescribes the one that would do the trick and costs me less with my insurance, or without.

If you are trying to prove a point, you missed that on your first try.

So your answer is?...

Uh oh.  I see a BBCOR vs wood debate coming on.  

snowman,

No, my use in this particular instance does not include composites.  I'm trying to keep things at least somewhat tied to the original OP's "ethics" assertion and subsequent ignoring of the info put in front of him.  If you'd like to start another thread on the wood composites, I'll be glad to join that discussion.