National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentJune 9, 1997
Guest editorial -- More control needed for bat performance
BY MARK JOHNSON Enough is enough is enough. It is time to make a stand.
As coaches of the great game of baseball, we must accept responsibility to uphold and protect the integrity, tradition and quality of our game. This responsibility is passed down from one coach to another, from one generation to the next. The bat we are currently using is not only a safety hazard, but it is alter-ing the game itself. The blame must fall on coaches; the bat manufacturers are not to blame. They, like all of us, are in a competitive business where they are charged with continually improving their product. They have done their job well. Certainly everyone is aware that the bat, particularly in the past few years, has greatly enhanced offensive productivity. However, the "short game," consisting of such things as bunts, hits-and-runs, and hitting behind the runner, is fast becoming a lost art. Coaches are playing for the big inning, and rightly so. In most cases, pitchers who are not power pitchers are finding it harder to survive by learning the art of locating pitches and setting up hitters. Most pitchers who do survive do so with a large arsenal of breaking pitches and change-ups. One of the traditional jewels of our game is the comparison of statistics from year to year. Today, an asterisk is needed to identify the bat used. Let's let the player's prowess, not the equipment we use, improve the game. Three basic areas need to be addressed with our bat manufacturers. 1. The differential between the length of the bat and its weight. We now have bats with a five-unit differential. This means a bat can be 34 inches long and weigh 29 ounces or 35 inches long and weigh 30 ounces. The wood bat, in order to keep from breaking, must have only a two- or three-unit differential. In simple terms, the bat we now use is lighter and longer, which increases bat speed and, consequently, productivity. 2. The length of the "sweet spot." In order for the wood bat to be productive, the ball must make contact with the bat in a spot of approximately 2 or 3 inches. With the bat we now use, that spot is around 6 or 7 inches. Obviously, a batter increases his chances for productivity with the larger "sweet spot." 3. Bat "exit speed." It has been documented statistically that the bat we now use, as compared to the wood bat, has enormously increased rebounding effects when the ball meets the bat, which, of course, increases the speed by which the ball leaves the bat, as well as the distance it travels. The gradual enhancement of the bat's performance has gone too far. At its June 1996 meeting, the American Baseball Coaches Association Board of Directors voted unanimously to recommend that the NCAA Baseball Rules Committee establish a permanent bat performance standard so that the nonwood bat is "somewhat comparable" to the wood bat used at the professional level. Certainly, the wood bat is not the answer because of financial reasons, but it is time to set a standard for our bat that is comparable to the productivity of the wood bat. The bat should have a maximum unit differential of three, without the grip. There must be specifications established by static testing on maximum exit speed at a specified bat swing speed. The speed should be such that it allows reasonable reaction time for the pitcher to respond to the maximum exit speed of the ball off the bat. At this time, with our current bat, the human reaction time is not enough to respond to the ball's exit speed off the bat when the ball is hit with optimum or close to optimum bat speed. We need not only to protect the integrity of the game, but we need to protect the players. We are all witnessing more pitchers being hit by balls coming off bats. The pitchers' reaction time cannot keep up with the increase in the speed of the ball as it rebounds off the bat. Collegiate Baseball and other publications have reported instances in which pitchers have been hit in the face. As dramatic as it may sound, it is only a matter of time before a pitcher does not recover from a blow to the head. Can the bat manufacturers make a bat that will respond in a way that is similar to a wood bat? Yes, they can. Should we ask the manufacturers to do so? Yes, we should. Let's restore safety and integrity to our game. Let's not allow a .250 hitter to be a .300 hitter. Let's not allow a location or control pitcher to have an earned-run average of 6.00. Let's pass down to the next coach and the next generation a game that continues to hold firm to its traditions, integrity and quality. Improvement in the playing of the game should be in the hands of the players, not the manufacturers. Enough is enough. Mark Johnson is baseball coach at Texas A&M University, College Station. An article similar to this one appeared previously in Collegiate Baseball. Letters to the Editor -- Title IX clear, both now and in the past"Brown friends-of-court sought clarification of Title IX." "Court's decision not to hear case leaves some groups disappointed." Those are two examples of recent NCAA News headlines regarding the Supreme Court's refusal to hear Brown's appeal relative to its five-year legal battle involving Title IX. The meaning of Title IX, as well as the often disputed three-prong test and corresponding issues of proportionality, are not in need of further clarification, elaboration, reinterpretation or reinvention. Title IX says: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Simply stated, Title IX legally mandates that discrimination based on sex in educational institutions is against the law. It is neither arbitrary nor unclear. The fact that institutions across the country are struggling to comply with this almost quarter-century old law is testimony that: (a) sex discrimination in athletics has been, and continues to be, the norm; (b) resources are limited; (c) those who historically and traditionally have had more have continually resisted giving up some of what they have come to consider rightfully theirs; and (d) institutions and organizations continue to pass the buck and are attempting (quite successfully, it appears) to direct the blame for the short-term discomfort associated with obeying the law onto the law itself, as opposed to accepting responsibility for making tough choices. Title IX does not favor one sex over another, and the choices institutions make to come into compliance (that is, increasing support for women's sports programs, capping/limiting growth support for men's sports programs and/or eliminating men's sports programs) are just that: choices. No one choice is mandated or even preferenced over another relative to the law itself. Let me say it again, another way: The choices institutions make to come into compliance with the law are at the sole discretion of the institutions themselves. Institutions can choose to work to increase available resources. They can choose to limit growth support for men's programs. They can choose to eliminate whole men's sports programs (such as men's minor sports) or they can choose to redistribute resources among existing sports programs (perhaps taking "proportionately" from all men's sports, including football). Or they can choose to engage in any or all of the above in combination. Finally, it is important to note that contrary to popular myth, football programs (across all divisions) seldom pay for themselves, let alone support "nonrevenue" producing sports programs. This fact is well-supported and documented through a recent NCAA report. The information also is available to interested parties through each institution's Equity in Athletics Disclosure report. "Revenue-producing" does not mean "profit-making" -- an important distinction that often gets lost or misinterpreted. According to Scribner and Englert (1977): "...Law only sets general policy (and as such) it can shape practice and provide direction, but inasmuch as the consequences for noncompliance can be evaded and/or tolerated, it cannot compel action." The only difference between now and five, 10, 15 or 20-plus years ago is that the consequences for noncompliance are more difficult to evade or tolerate. There isn't anything wrong or unclear with or about Title IX. There is a lot wrong with persistent efforts to deflect attention away from the tough choices compliance necessitates by pitting the have-nots against the have-nots and prolonging and perpetuating discrimination in school sport.
Cindy L. A. Pemberton
Petty concernAn article in the New York Times sports section for Sunday, June 1, 1997, (by William N. Wallace) reports that the NCAA is considering action that would end the tradition of losing rowers surrendering their shirts to the winners of collegiate crew races. The article says the NCAA considers such an act to be gambling. Can't we find something more pressing to worry about? If giving up a shirt to the race winner is gambling, then wearing a toupee must mean you have real hair. Years ago I pulled a lightweight oar for Columbia. We weren't very fast and consequently I can count the number of shirts handed to me after races on one hand. I still have them, tucked away in the bottom of a dresser in mint condition. I've never worn them; in fact, I never look at them. But I feel better knowing they are there. If the NCAA is correct, those shirts must have some substantial value, especially after all these years. Before you follow up with a decree that all shirts must be given back, I'm thinking about selling mine and dumping the money into a Vanguard index fund or maybe just a light blue BMW. How much is a 35-year-old Yale racing shirt worth anyhow?
Thomas F. Harris Opinions -- Athlete work issue still concers coaches, administrators
Vincent J. Dooley, athletics director "This is one of the most critical issues we've ever dealt with. "There are so many bad situations that can happen. This would set us back many, many years.''
Gerry DiNardo, football coach "I think the rule is anti-academic legislation. I don't see how a kid can devote 20 hours a week (the NCAA rule maximum) devoted to his sport, take care of his academics and work at a job."
Jerry Green, men's basketball coach ''You're going to have to hire three people to run the program. One person will have to find jobs for the players. Another person will have to make sure the program is run right. And a third person will be needed to report all the violations to the NCAA.''
Bowl alliance
Mike Bianchi, columnist "When major-college presidents and conference commissioners tell us they are against a national playoff system because it would lengthen the season and hurt academics -- don't believe them for a minute. Their reasoning for fighting a playoff and protecting the alliance has nothing to do with academics and everything to do with greed. The big schools don't want a playoff because they can make more money without it. They can make more money by cutting the small schools out of the equation and having their own private, privileged party. "There's just a few small problems: The bowl alliance is not fair, it's not right, and it's probably not legal either."
Michael A. Tranghese, commissioner "The fans and the media are not interested in the problems and pressures of college football. They just want a playoff and that's understandable. A playoff would be a nice, neat way to decide a national championship. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's best for college football."
Roy F. Kramer, commissioner "For any kind of a playoff to work, the early rounds would have to be played on campus. Everyone knows that. "But what if you did try to use the bowls? Suppose you're a Florida fan and the first round is played in Memphis at the Liberty Bowl? Do you spend your money and go there or wait until the second round in Atlanta?"
Football revenue
Joan C. Cronan, women's athletics director "When I say my prayers at night, I always thank the Lord for Neyland Stadium."
Partial grants-in-aid
Sam Bell, track and field coach "If you give partial scholarships, you get partial athletes." |