ACC is piling up the National Championships!!!

G

GT Ace

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Messages
1,853
The Florida St Seminoles have just won the Men's Outdoor Track & Field National Championship! This tremendous achievement couples up with the Virginia Cavaliers winning the Men's Lacross National Championship & the Duke ladies taking the hardware as the Women's Golf National Champions. The Miami ladies lost the Women's Tennis National Championship gm & took 2nd nationally.
There's 3 ACC teams in the same 4 team bracket in Omaha, so chances are excellent that Ga Tech, Clemson or North Carolina will play in the Men's Baseball National Championship gm. What an outstanding Spring for the ACC!!!!

Another ACC National Champion!
 
I can't believe people bitch about being in the ACC. ACC basketball is light years ahead of the other conferences. Now that F$U and Miami are on board the football side is as strong as ANY other conference.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/soapbox.gif
 
Absolutely no complaints about the conference's "minor" athletics. I will say that baseball is quickly becoming the third ncaa major if it hasn't already done so. Put wood bats in the game, and it's absolute.
Congrats to ACC Baseball! If we can get by climpsun and stay in the winner's bracket, this is our year. Go Jackets!

Basketball and football are entirely different. Those that are in charge of the conference run the two major sports like a neighborhood bridge game.
 
I agree, I don't get the same thrill out of college baseball because of the aluminum bats. Bring back the wood.

Nevertheless, I will be rooting hard for the baseball Jackets in Omaha. Especially the local products Wes Hodges(Baylor) and Whit Robbins(Calhoun).
 
Uh, care to explain the comments about how the conference runs football and basketball? I have no clue what you're talking about.

On the other subject, I don't think college baseball will ever go back to wood. It's simply too expensive. When I was in HS we went from wood to aluminum and we went from about 30 bats (at a time) to 5 for the year. No comparison cost wise.
 
[ QUOTE ]
On the other subject, I don't think college baseball will ever go back to wood. It's simply too expensive. When I was in HS we went from wood to aluminum and we went from about 30 bats (at a time) to 5 for the year. No comparison cost wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen a comparison cost and even so, the savings envolved aren't worth it....my opinion.

I live behind a high school baseball field and the 'ping' just is not nearly as pleasant of a sound as the 'crack' of wood that I hear as a frequent visitor to Bell South Park....home of the Chattanooga Lookouts.

Also, if ballplayers....at all levels....cared for their bats like they use to....such as 'boning' the bats to make them harder they wouldn't be breaking them as if they was toothpicks.
 
I've never seen a cost comparison but I base my comments on a couple of things. First, my own experience is that you need many, many more bats at a time if you use wood. I noticed in one of the SR games yesterday a player handing his bat to the next batter after striking out. Anecdotal but you never see that with wood, the bats are too different. But also, wood bats do break. Watch the pros and you see it all the time. Maybe you can control it somewhat but they go through tons of bats over the course of a season.

The argument about better preparing players for the pros probably has some merit, but as others have said, most players don't seem to have a problem adjusting. It does hurt pitchers, mainly because they can't come inside with the same success as they would against wood bats. But I think the dire consequences are overstated. Pitchers still succeed at the next level and they do understand the impact the bats have.

Finally, I got a chance to speak with Jim Morris years back about it and he basically said schools just can't afford it. Some could of course, but overall for college baseball the finances just wouldn't work.
 
I would be happy to explain my problems with the conference as it pertains to football and basketball, but it would be just a repeat of prior discussions. The card game analogy is about the preferetial treatment of the NC schools. (A we versus them mentality) Just my opinion, but I hold it strongly.

About the aluminum bats: You are correct that high schools and colleges dropped the wood bats because of expense. That was in the 70's when college baseball was a non revenue sport. That is not the case today, especially for Division 1.
About expenses, a few to several years ago the ncaa finally determined that the aluminum bats were too dangerous for infielders. As a result, Easton, Mizuno and Worth, etc. were forced to find a way to reduce the trampoline effect of the metal bats down to close to what a wood bat produces. I don't know what that cost, but it wasn't cheap.
Also, the durability factor of alum. bats has been greatly reduced. 100 years ago when I was playing, the favorite bat was the one that had developed a flat spot. It was like hitting a ball with a paddle.
Not so today. Before every game, the umps inspect every bat the teams declare they want to use. If the bat is not a perfect barrell, it gets thrown out.
At $275 a pop and higher, aluminum bats are no bargain!
Not to mention that they take away from the game, IMO.

If a cost savings still persists, I don't have any problem with minor conferences still using them but not for D-1.
If anyone saw the last two innings of the UNC/Ala. game, it would be clear that wood bats need to be used.
 
I'm not saying there aren't problems with the conference, but in the context of competing for National Championships I don't see how they hinder teams. Who plays in the Charlotte bowl game has nothing to do with MNC hopes in football. Likewise, where the ACCT is played or the unbalanced schedule doesn't stop a team from competing for the title.

I'm looking for the numbers but I'm very confident that college baseball, even at the D1 level is still essentially a non revenue sport. Meaning almost every school in the country loses money. Finances are still a major issue.
 
Re football, good point in mnc context.

About the bat thing, I don't believe significant cost savings exist anymore.
I do believe that aluminum bats still exist in large part because of the strong ties between the ncaa and Mizuno, Worth and Easton. These manufacturers should be given a lot of credit for the state of the game today. I just wish they would buy a lumber mill!
 
I'd love to see some real numbers on the wood vs alum, in relation to cost over a season. From looking around the web for about 5 minutes, it looks like wood bats top out below $150, and average in the $50-$75 range, looks like aluminums are 2 to 3 times that... I know some HS leagues have recently went back to wooden bats for safety reasons. I can't remember swinging a wooden bat anytime after elementary school, and those were few and far between.

I could see going to wooden bats being the key piece to putting college baseball as a major part of the NCAA, after football/basketball, its already on the way there now, especially in the South. I would certainly welcome it.
 
Why would using wooden bats have any impact at all on college baseball's status in the NCAA? The simple fact is it's not going to be a money maker at the vast majority of schools. It's not going to suddenly gain TV exposure, and you could make a good case that going back to wood, and the resulting decrease in HRs, BA, runs, etc., that we all seem to think would occur actually did, it would be even worse for the sport from a spectator and TV standpoint.
 
Along those same lines, maybe D-1 football should make the blitz illegal.
I think the majority of college baseball fans are sophisticated enough to appreciate a well played 3-2 game.

Most of the people that find baseball boring usually do so because not enough "points" are scored. If it takes altering the game to make it more appealing to the masses, don't call it baseball. How about Rocket Ball ?
 
My point is the public seems to like college baseball more now than they did years back. So what would the change help?
 
I do think the aluminum bats make the game kinda rinky "dinK". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hugelaugh.gif I'm pretty sure that college teams could afford to buy wood bats. I believe I've read that one of the reasons wood bats became so fragile is that they kept reducing the diameter of the handles to lighten the bats. Ole timey bats weighed like 36 oz and they no weigh considerably less. Also they use a relative light wood (Ash?) which is more subject to break.
 
C'mon. I really doubt that the public likes the college game of baseball more now because of the aluminum bat. Do you?

To take it a step further, pro ball has done away with many of its bush leagues. A thru AAA is what you see now, as opposed to the very low class "pro ball"
It's great that college baseball has replaced a lot of these lower leagues. Every team that has advanced in the college tournament has a few to several players drafted.
What has been strange is that these great talent kids at the college level don't get to play the game with the equipment they will use at the next level.
Pitchers and fielders are as affected as the hitters.
 
I didn't say it's because of the bats, I said the game seems to be getting more popular. So why would you change something that would have as drastic an effect as the bats? Unless they really wouldn't make any difference so this whole discussion is pointless? Why mess with something that's working?

Besides what really is the affect? Pitchers and hitters both make the transition at the next level. The newer bats do deaden the ball somewhat. Except for being able to hit the ball off the handle I'm not sure how much impact there really is other than the sound.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Also they use a relative light wood (Ash?) which is more subject to break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most bats are made of ash, but while it may be light relative to lignum vitae, it's actually heavier and stronger than oak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top