NCAA Enhanced Softball Bat-Compliance Testing

If your wondering where the bat compression testing is going.... see below



FROM: Ken Eriksen, chair
NCAA Softball Rules Committee

Dee Abrahamson, secretary-rules editor
NCAA Softball Rules Committee.

SUBJECT: Enhanced Softball Bat-Compliance Testing.


One outcome of the 2009 NCAA Softball Rules Committee summer meeting was approval of a proposal to enhance softball bat-compliance testing. The proposal was approved in September by the Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet, as well as the Division II Championship Committee and the Division III Championship Committee.

This notification will summarize three years of research testing and will outline what to expect in 2010 and beyond.

A quick history of the bat-compliance program reveals that beginning in 2007 through 2009, bats were secured as teams were eliminated from competition (or a winner crowned). In Division I, two bats were taken from each team participating at the Women’s College World Series. At the Division II and III levels, two bats were secured from each team participating in the championship games. For three years, a minimum of 24 bats were secured for post competition, lab bat-compliance testing.

Although specific results of the lab results have not been made public, we are sharing the compiled results that 31.5 percent of the bats tested exceeded the standard, which is a batted-ball exit speed of 98 mph. Bats that failed were from across all three divisions. If your team had a bat that failed the lab test in any one of the three years of testing, the head coach at your institution will soon receive a letter of notification with a copy to the director of athletics and senior woman administrator. This notification will be sent only to those teams that had a bat(s) that exceeded the standard, which will make them aware of the lab test results.

A major enhancement for the future, in addition to post competition lab testing, is that barrel-compression testing will be conducted in-season at major tournaments, as well as at any round of postseason competition. Barrel-compression testing will be done by a simple red-light, green-light machine that measures the stiffness of the bat’s barrel. A red light signifies the bat fails the stiffness test; a green light means the bat passes. Barrel-compression testing does not predict future (enduring) compliance, and a passing test in no way guarantees that the bat will pass testing at a later date.

You should expect differences in 2010 and in 2011, as barrel-compression testing will be optional in 2010 and mandatory in 2011. The most significant reason barrel-compression testing will be optional in 2010 is to allow teams to become familiar with the test procedures before it is required in 2011. The head coach (or their designee) who agrees to barrel-compression testing in 2010 will acknowledge by signing a waiver that if any bat fails the barrel-compression test, the institution agrees to not use the bat (or agrees to surrender it), and the team will not receive renumeration for the bat.

The on-site, barrel-compression testing will include completion of a bat log (for example, bat manufacturer and model, bat length and weight) for each bat the team will use in the contest. The test will be conducted by a trained individual (former or current rules committee member) who will share the barrel-compression test results only on a need-to-know basis.

In addition to the barrel-compression testing, bats will be secured for postseason lab compliance testing from a larger number of institutions participating in postseason competition than in the past. The goal is to obtain fewer bats from more institutions; for example one bat from 30 teams instead of two bats from 15 teams. Lab test results that exceed the standard will be shared with the institution, as well as with the appropriate softball committee for consideration of championship misconduct.

 

As hard as your girls hit it you better hide your bats!! Just joking...I wish they would come up with a standard that could be tested before it leaves the manufacturer and the bat would not get any hotter with use...only cooler. This way they would only have to spot check for doctored bats during a game or season.

 

If I understand this correctly, bat manufactures are making bats too hot once broken in? Will the schools using a bat considered too hot be penalized, will those hot bats be declared illegal, or will a rule change include the broken in period?

 

I thought the ASA was already doing Post-certification testing of approved bats to gage the change of the bats after production and break-in.

The NCAA also said that Student-owned bats would be replaced or reimbursed.

I was trying to find a description of the bat barrel compression tester. They say they are going to buy 12 of them for $9000... which means that they are not very sophisticated devices... which makes you wonder about the quality of the test.

 

But what about the test itself? How do they take into account the different sizes and strengths in players, the speed of their swings whether it be a a swing for the fence or a bunt, the speed of a pitch? Lots of variables.

 

Exactly

Just like Chilli it taste better the second day !!!--Guru

 

A player does have a role in the efficiency of the bat but not the responsiveness of it. Bat meets ball at X speed and returns at percentage of X speed. The testing uses a baseline speed. There is complete spec on the testing device and procedure. I just cant find the spec for this compression testing device that the NCAA plans to use.

 

Correct.... ASA also has plans

As stated above, the NCAA tested bats from all three divisions from 2007-2009. 31.5% of the bats collected exceeded the standard of a 98mph exit speed. They did not break them down by manufacturer.

The Barrel Compression test, which in simple terms, measures the integrity of the barrel, based on the stiffness of the bat's barrel. I believe the premise is that if a bat has been rolled or "enhanced" in any way, it will show up during this examination...

Note: Bat manufacturers in 2007 - 2008 were still producing bats that were designed to be at 98mph out of the wrapper. Last years bats (2009) were in most cases " geared down" to give the bat room to mature to the 98mph level. Easton, Louisville, Mizuno were prime examples where the bat performed better as it matured. It would be interesting to know how many of the 2009 bats tested above the 98mph at the 3 NCAA Championships held this year.... 2010 will bring more changes, but composite is here to stay.

I sure there will be much more on this in the coming days.
Not sure on the "reimbursement or replacement" question. Makes sense there would be some provision.

ASA will not comment on their plans for the 2010 season but they had to let bat companies know what is coming. Because of this fact some representatives have this information; I had talked to 4 representatives from 3 different companies and all four said they were aware of a 93 mph limit for bat manufactures in regards to new bats in the future. I could not get specifics because they had none but they knew something was coming and everyone of them quoted 93 mph. One did say that the pre 93 mph bats will be phased out like the Miken Freak, Easton Synergy 2, and Mizuno Orange Crush were in 2004. These bats were put on a 2 year time limit and then they were illegal for ASA play. This is consistent with all the the information being disseminated by bat manufacturers of the 2012 grandfather rule on current equipment.

Obviously, not sure if the NCAA will follow the ASA standard

Hope this helps....

 

Thanks for your reply. I found this regarding the student compensation for personal bats. Maybe this is only an agenda item "to be approved" See paragraph 4.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/DI_Champs_Sports_Mgmt_Cab/2009/September/Supp_33_Softball_Rules.pdf

 

I would imagine D1 schools have contracts with bat manufacturers. The part about notifying the head coach, and AD of non-conforming bats is interesting. If the bat was found to be altered or rolled I would understand that, but what can the respective coaches do about it? This is similar to what golf has been going through with the Driver, when the golf ball is just as big a factor if not more. This all concerns me financially. NSA tried to confiscate my DD's bat after hitting a pitcher in the knee. I happened to mention that the ball hit the ground first, and the bat was given back to me. I hate to see the day that these compression devices are at TB tournaments, and we risk loosing a $300.00 dollar bat.