The integrity of the BBCOR stamp?

Crusader Dad,

Why? Parents with a child in the age brackets where BBCOR bats are mandatory need to quit looking at buying a baseball bat as an investment, and start looking at it as a cost of doing business. Its very unlikely that a bat will be decertified in less than one year, and that makes a bat cost from $5 to $30 a month for that year. If you can’t afford $30 a month, then buy a cheaper bat, or send Jr out to earn enough money to buy his own.

Sorry to come across as being insensitive, but I want the process to be about making sure the game has integrity and is safe, not worrying about the financial status of those who play it. Seriously, if buying a bat is such a financial hardship, there are loads of ways to mitigate that. My kid collected aluminum cans, mowed lawns, and walked lots of dogs for a dollar a walk.

Have him use a wood bat. It will make him a better hitter anyway. Then all you have to worry about is Him breaking it.
I agree with Stats, I'd rather have the game safer!!

quote:

Originally posted by CBMDad:
Have him use a wood bat. It will make him a better hitter anyway. Then all you have to worry about is Him breaking it.
I agree with Stats, I'd rather have the game safer!!

Anybody who buys an expensive BBCOR bat is spending extra $$ to purchase an edge.

It's not clear with BBCOR that you're buying an edge.

However, assuming that you are actually purchasing a slight edge, you are also taking on some risk: Now that the NCAA has gotten serious about regulating their bats, they're performing periodic random compliance audits. Production bats that exceed the test bats run the risk of being de-certified.

Bottom line, buy a $75 BBCOR bat and you won't have to worry about your bat being de-certified.

quote:

Originally posted by Crusader Dad:
The consumer needs to know that a BBCOR stamp on the bat they purchase has integrity and guarantees a fair legal life of usefulness

Crusader,
What would you like the NCAA to do if a batmaker submits a test bat that meets BBCOR .5, then produces a bat for the market that performs better than BBCOR.5?

Freddy, I agree with all of that. I guess my point is I would rather my Son use wood that a cheap BBCOR.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
Crusader Dad,

Why? Parents with a child in the age brackets where BBCOR bats are mandatory need to quit looking at buying a baseball bat as an investment, and start looking at it as a cost of doing business. Its very unlikely that a bat will be decertified in less than one year, and that makes a bat cost from $5 to $30 a month for that year. If you can’t afford $30 a month, then buy a cheaper bat, or send Jr out to earn enough money to buy his own.

Sorry to come across as being insensitive, but I want the process to be about making sure the game has integrity and is safe, not worrying about the financial status of those who play it. Seriously, if buying a bat is such a financial hardship, there are loads of ways to mitigate that. My kid collected aluminum cans, mowed lawns, and walked lots of dogs for a dollar a walk.

I don't think he was calling a bat an investment; instead he was saying their ought to be some integrity in the process. We can have bats that meet the BBCOR standard and are held to that standard. It doesn't have to be an either or.

Why can't we have a better certification process that gives reasonable certainty that once the bats get certified they will remain so?

Maybe those who certify bats could put in place some type of penalty for those whose bats become de-certified to increase likelihood that they maintain quality standards throughout production.

What if a company who was de-certified faced a one year ban on BBCOR certification? I believe the companies would work harder to see that the standards were maintained.

It sounds like they may have some quality control issues...that, or they really dropped the ball on post ABI testing.

I'm not sure the NCAA is even considering the 14-18 age group. That age group is regulated by the NFHS which has chosen to follow the NCAA's certifications.

Don't most colleges have equipment contracts and thus are furnished bats by the makers of those bats?

If so, there's very little cost to the NCAA or it's member institutions to change bats mid-season.

That's just how I see it.....

quote:

Originally posted by RonBon:
I'm not sure the NCAA is even considering the 14-18 age group. That age group is regulated by the NFHS which has chosen to follow the NCAA's certifications.

Very true - If you are concerned about the 14-18 group, look at the NFHS. They don’t have to follow the NCAA, but they do. And to be quite honest it just makes sense anyway.

Why doesn't the NCAA come out and say specifically what was wrong with the bat? How many bats were out of spec? How did it come to their attention that those bats were out of spec? This particular bat has been out for some time now.

To me, this seems more of a fight between bat manufactures. Old guns not too happy about the new kids on the block. Old guns buy up a large lot of bats, test them until they find one or two out of spec and turn them into the NCAA. Would be nice to understand more about this process.

My guess is both Rip-It and Marucci are suffering mightily financially speaking. I could be 100% wrong about that too but this can't be leaving a good taste in their customers mouths and how many people will be afraid to buy their bats in the future because of this?

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
Why doesn't the NCAA come out and say specifically what was wrong with the bat? How many bats were out of spec? How did it come to their attention that those bats were out of spec? This particular bat has been out for some time now.

To me, this seems more of a fight between bat manufactures. Old guns not too happy about the new kids on the block. Old guns buy up a large lot of bats, test them until they find one or two out of spec and turn them into the NCAA. Would be nice to understand more about this process.

My guess is both Rip-It and Marucci are suffering mightily financially speaking. I could be 100% wrong about that too but this can't be leaving a good taste in their customers mouths and how many people will be afraid to buy their bats in the future because of this?

Why should the NCAA worry about why a bat failed or specifically how many failed? The standards are what they are, and a bat either passes of fails. And it really doesn’t matter if it’s a fight between manufacturers or not. Its not as though you or I can send a bat in, have it tested, and have that bat represent all bats like it.

The NCAA delayed implementation of BBCOR for quite a while (almost two years, I believe), allowing bat manufacturers and retailers to make the necessary adjustments to properly introduce these bats to market. The testing guidelines are firm. The bat manufacturers, by nature, will want to push the guidelines to the limit in order to get maximum performance from their products, thus selling more. Once the rules are in place, all NCAA can do is test all bats that come to market and then monitor via occasional spot testing. If a bat maker produces a batch that is inconsistent with the original test bat and this is caught, NCAA has no choice but to “decertify” to assure that their rules will be upheld.

It is not the responsibility of NCAA to consider the 14-18 age group in their decisions. The NFHS chooses whether or not to adopt the same regulations as the NCAA.

Any time there are bat rules changes, there are messy situations until things settle in. Every retailer has their own return policy. I think Marucci, as a manufacturer, is doing as much as they can, considering the circumstance. Once they have made any necessary adjustments, the new bats will have to go through the certification process again. When this occurs mid-season it is almost always expedited by both manufacturer and the governing body.

The fact that they are all ready talking about a next level- "tamper-proof BBCOR" shows the whole problem.

wood is the answer.

The BBCOR stamp has integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by trojan-skipper:
The fact that they are all ready talking about a next level- "tamper-proof BBCOR" shows the whole problem.

wood is the answer.

If wood were truly the answer, that’s what the rules would have been changed to read. There are many reasons that’s not what happened, and none of them involve some great conspiracy.