Baseball bat controversy has returned to the NCAA, once again bringing its ever-present companions -- confusion and litigation.

This time last year, baseball bat manufacturer Easton and wood-composite bat maker Steve Baum both were suing the NCAA, each alleging that the Association had conspired with the other to lock it out of the bat market. (Easton withdrew its suit. The court dismissed the NCAA from the Baum suit, but Baum is trying to bring new claims against the Association.)

Eventually, new bat standards were approved in October 1999 and implemented in January 2000. But already there is talk of a "loophole" in the NCAA bat standard and whispers of a particular bat that is "hotter" than others that have passed the NCAA certification test.

There have been miscellaneous allegations that the NCAA has somehow compromised its baseball bat protocol to end a lawsuit, and rumors of a secret deal ensuring that the standards won't change.

While it is true that a potential loophole exists, it is not true that the NCAA compromised the protocol or that it arranged some sort of secret deal not to change the standards.

Even so, the national media has speculated freely on the subject.

A piece in Sports Illustrated's March 27 Scorecard section titled "Killer Bats?" implied that the Association had compromised safety to settle a lawsuit.

Seemingly seeking a similar conclusion, Fox Sports interjected a copy of a "confidential" memo into an on-camera interview with the NCAA staff liaison to the NCAA Baseball Rules Committee.

Still other media outlets have acquired the memo and are said to be planning stories featuring its contents.

The memo was written by Jim Sherwood, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, who is contracted to test bats for the NCAA, and it was sent electronically to various NCAA staff members. In it, Sherwood spoke of a potential loophole in the NCAA's testing protocol that he feared would cause "someone to get seriously hurt and potentially killed." He also expressed concern that he or his laboratory might face legal liability for testing the bats.

Sherwood subsequently faxed a copy of the e-mail to Baum, and the not-so-confidential memo subsequently was acquired by Sports Illustrated and Fox Sports. The resulting media attention -- along with the persistent use of words like "lethal" and "killer" -- has caused concern and confusion among coaches, athletics directors and college presidents.

While there are many complex twists and turns to the entire matter, virtually everyone involved wants to know the answers to these questions:

* Is there really a loophole in the bat-testing protocol?

* Did the NCAA knowingly leave the loophole in the protocol?

* Were the NCAA's bat standards compromised somehow by negotiations with any particular company?

* What will happen now?

A question of balance

The testing of bats by Sherwood for NCAA certification this season has uncovered a possible loophole in the NCAA bat-testing protocol, although there appears to be no consensus on the actual impact that such a loophole might have.

Bats are tested by a machine invented by Steve Baum -- the Baum Hitting Machine -- in a laboratory at Massachusetts-Lowell. The testing protocol calls for each bat to be swung at precisely the same speed, hitting a ball that is pitched at exactly the same speed and resulting in a batted-ball exit speed of no more than 97 mph.

Sherwood believes that his testing has shown him a way that bat companies can make a metal bat that passes the certification test in the laboratory but that swings faster than wood when it is used in the field. Sherwood said this is accomplished by moving the bat's "balance point," also known as its center of gravity. The location of the balance point determines how easy the bat is to swing.

"What I started to see is that some of the companies were moving the balance points, and with that, the bat can swing a little faster," Sherwood said. "I think that by moving the balance point, they can have it pass the standard in the lab but not in the field."

Last year when Sherwood was asked for input on the NCAA's bat protocol, he did not believe the Association needed to address a bat's balance point. Sherwood said that Baum was his mentor when he first began testing the bats, and as such Baum convinced him in the fall of 1998 that balance points couldn't make enough of a difference to cause a problem.

"Baum argued against having a balance point (standard) and used his Baum Hitting Machine to provide (data) supporting that a balance point was not required," Sherwood said. "He argued that the presence of a balance point in the NCAA bat rule would be too limiting to the bat designers and that players would not want to swing a bat that had its balance too close to the knob."

However, Sherwood now is concerned that some models may be "hot" bats because the balance points have been adjusted.

"Everybody is going to see that this company has them, and they are going to make bats in the same direction," he said. "It's potentially bad this year, and it's only going to get worse. It is my opinion that we need to nip it in the bud."

While the balance point in a wood bat is a function of the wood itself and is generally fixed (barring some kind of tampering like inserting cork), balance points are easy to move in the design of metal bats.

"There are multiple ways that they are doing it," Sherwood said, "You just bias the weight toward the handle."

Sherwood explained that bat companies have long designed bats with balance points arranged specifically for slow-pitch and fast-pitch softball. For slow-pitch softball, the balance point is placed farther out toward the barrel. The ball comes in more slowly, so a fast swing is less desirable while the larger club head -- to put additional weight behind the ball at impact -- is more desirable.

In fast-pitch softball (and baseball), the balance point is placed closer to the knob of the bat, permitting the batter to swing the bat faster but with less weight behind the ball at impact.

The testing done for the NCAA this season has raised Sherwood's concerns that the movement of the balance point can result in a dangerous increase in ball exit speed. "I think (moving the balance point) can result in an additional four to eight mile per hour increase in batted-ball speed," Sherwood said.

Michael M. Carroll, a member of the NCAA Baseball Research Panel and professor of engineering and retired dean of the school of engineering at Rice University, agrees that the testing has shown there may be a loophole in the standard, but he does not agree with Sherwood on the impact such a loophole might have in the field.

"We tried to legislate a standard resulting in metal bats that were no better than wood bats, and we're not getting what we set out to do," he said, commenting on some preliminary testing data. "There is a possible loophole, I think, and we need to look at it. We may want to regulate moment of inertia (MOI), as well as ball-exit speed."

Carroll considered the MOI issue previously, but he did not think it would be a significant issue.

"My naïve conclusion was that it would be a wash," he said. "I thought that while the bat would be easier to swing, it would not have as much mass and therefore not propel the ball significantly faster. My original feeling was that you wouldn't gain much. That may not be the case. I think we need to examine the data."

MOI is the measured resistance of the bat to being swung, Carroll said. Both Sherwood and Carroll agree that determining the MOI is a more precise way of measuring swing weight. Essentially, regulating MOI would have the effect of limiting balance-point manipulation.

A lower MOI results in a faster swing, but Carroll said it is not currently known exactly how much that faster swing might increase batted-ball speed.

"First, we need to see if there is a significant gain in ball exit speed from reducing the MOI," Carroll said. "Sherwood's observation indicates that we should take a look, but I'd like to see the data first."

Based on some initial calculations of his own, Carroll believes that moving the balance point and decreasing the MOI have resulted in no more than a 5 percent increase in batted-ball speed.

"I think 5 percent is an upper boundary," Carroll said. "It could more realistically be 2, 3 or 4 percent. That's why we need further testing.

"We tried to legislate that metal bats perform no better than wood bats. It appears to me that what we may have now is wood plus 5 percent. But (previously) there were no limitations other than design limitations. There were no performance limitations, and bats could be a lot hotter than wood plus 5 percent.

"I'd hate to think that this is an attempt to sell dangerous bats, and I don't think it is that."

Strong words, stronger reactions

If Sherwood found what he thought was a loophole in the standard, why didn't he simply notify the NCAA and ask the baseball panel to review his concerns? Why did he send an e-mail that included language such as: "I am genuinely concerned that someone is going to get seriously hurt and potentially killed -- and most likely with (a particular) bat ... I would appreciate receiving a letter from the NCAA saying that the NCAA will protect me and my lab from any responsibility of what harm may come from these bats."

In addition to the stated liability concerns, Sherwood said he wrote the memo to motivate the NCAA to address his concerns.

"I used stronger language than probably was necessary," he said, "but I wanted to get their attention."

Sherwood also said he was concerned that bat companies would be forced to spend money getting bats tested that would later fail if a change was implemented. (Bat companies pay a fee to Massachusetts-Lowell for testing the bats.)

Sherwood said he also heard a rumor "that there was a secret agreement with Easton that nothing would change for three years. I didn't believe it at the time, and I thought it was just some individuals being paranoid. But when I (sent the e-mail to the NCAA) and didn't hear back, I wondered."

However, at no time was there any such agreement, said NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey.

"Let me dispel that rumor as emphatically as I can," Dempsey said. "At no time was there any deal, secret or otherwise, between the Association and Easton that we would not review the data and make any necessary adjustments to the bat certification standards."

There was a very public statement by the NCAA when the NCAA's Executive Committee approved the bat standard in October 1999, and that statement was issued in press releases and published in The NCAA News. The Executive Committee did declare a three-year moratorium on changes but at the same time reserved the right to make adjustments at any time as necessary.

"The intent of the moratorium was to avoid idle or unnecessary changes in the protocol," Dempsey said, "not to eliminate the opportunity to make any changes the appropriate research bodies felt necessary based on further testing."

At the time, Executive Committee Chair Charles Wethington, president of the University of Kentucky, said, "The moratorium will give the baseball community time to adjust to the new standards and (time) for the panel to do further research. Of course, we reserve the right to make adjustments in the standards for bats and balls at any time if necessary."

Additionally, the NCAA bat-testing protocol states that the NCAA "will revise the protocol as needed and reserves the right to change the test equipment, test location and the testing personnel. Any change in the protocol shall not be used before August 1, 2000, to prohibit the use of any previously certified bats."

Ty Halpin, NCAA staff liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee, points out that the purpose of not permitting changes in the protocol for one year was to collect scientific data and to protect institutions that had bought certified bats in good faith. Halpin also said the NCAA always intended for Sherwood's data to be reviewed, not ignored.

"We had already planned to get the NCAA Baseball Research Panel together to discuss the data from this season before we got Sherwood's e-mail," Halpin said. "The key point is that this potential loophole was something that we did not foresee. The only way to find out these kinds of things is to test the bats and see what kind of results we get."

Todd A. Petr, NCAA director of research and liaison to the NCAA Baseball Research Panel, said the panel intends to review the new data intently. The panel is planning an in-person meeting in conjunction with the College World Series.

"No revisions will be undertaken lightly," Petr said, "but if compelling evidence presents itself, the panel of scientists may make additional recommendations."

Those recommendations would go to the NCAA Baseball Rules Committee, and if appropriate, through the NCAA governance structure in all three divisions before implementation, a process Petr said could be expedited through conference calls if necessary.

Sherwood feels better now about the NCAA's awareness, although it's too late for him to take the e-mail back.

"I've been assured that if I find out anything, it will be taken care of," he said.

He said he now "feels good" about the NCAA's responsiveness and will continue to feel good as long as what he points out to the Association gets scrutinized.

"I genuinely believe that the NCAA Bat Research Panel made a best effort at the first drafting of the rule," he said. "And I was under the impression, both earlier and now, that whatever I found out would be considered.

"In hindsight, I shouldn't have sent (a copy of the e-mail) to Baum. I sent it to him as a friend, and I did what I thought was a courtesy to the NCAA and to him. I had no idea what he was going to do with it, and how he was going to take it out of context."

Allegations not grounded in merit

Some popular media have implied that the lack of a balance point in the NCAA's bat standards was somehow done to create a loophole for the benefit of Easton, which withdrew its lawsuit against the NCAA last fall.

Other allegations include a charge that the NCAA altered other elements of its protocol to satisfy Easton, thus compromising the intent of the standards.

However, the bat that NCAA tester Jim Sherwood referred to as exploiting a possible balance-point loophole was not an Easton bat.

"I am confident in saying that it is not the Easton bats," Sherwood said. He declined to identify the company that does make the bats.

NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey pointed out that the Association never felt that it was under pressure to make concessions to Easton.

"We had strong confidence in our ability to win the lawsuit, and the lawsuit had nothing to do with how we went about solving problems that had been of concern in the baseball community," Dempsey said. "We also felt that we did something revolutionary by putting together the NCAA Baseball Research Panel to study the issue."

NCAA Director of Research Todd A. Petr said that any changes proposed to the protocol first had to be approved by scientists on the research panel.

"The standard is and has always been wood," Petr said. "Any changes in the protocol were run past the scientists on the panel. If we felt a compromise wasn't appropriate, we didn't do it."

Petr also said that some Easton bats failed to meet the new protocol when tested.

Dempsey emphasized that the standards have made a difference in the game, even with the potential balance-point loophole.

"I'm disappointed that there have been emotional words used to talk about individual concerns," Dempsey said. "There is nothing to suggest that we have bats being used this year whose performance characteristics are greater than they were a year ago.

"We may have some bats performing better than the wood-like performance standard, but even the hottest bat seems to be significantly lower in performance than the bats used a year ago."