11/21/24
May 20, 2010
SportsFilter: The Thursday Huddle:
A place to discuss the sports stories that aren't making news, share links that aren't quite front-page material, and diagram plays on your hand. Remember to count to five Mississippi before commenting in anger.
In a case like this, despite the fact that it appears that the university did violate its agreement with the machine's manufacturer, I still think the manufacturer is wearing a big ol' asshat for the fallout effects for the game writ-large. The first case apparently seemed a bit excessive ... but I guess there was more to it.
This is why corporate or commercial funding is so dicey for universities ... in what is often referred to as the "new university" model, most of them will jump at money like this ... guess this is a warning to what can go wrong though.
posted by Spitztengle at 11:31 AM on May 20, 2010
That was my initial reaction, but by the time I finished the article, it wasn't so clear. Who knows which side is telling more of the truth, but this seemed fairly damning:
"The whole thing could have been avoided 10 years ago when they were informed they were using the machine improperly,'' Kochanowski said. "When they decided to keep using it improperly, everything spiraled downhill.''Maybe the manufacturer was being really picky about who they helped, but still: it took 10 years and multiple court cases to get the truth out of the school? Whose fault is that?
posted by yerfatma at 11:38 AM on May 20, 2010
It looks like the testing center was placed in a 'no win' situation by the maker of the testing machine. Baum, the machine's manufacturer allowed the testing center "to certify bats for the NCAA and other baseball organizations". Now, if you're a bat manufacturer and you want to sell bats to colleges, they have to be certified, and the NCAA goes to the testing center (U-Mass, Lowell) to have it done. So far, so good, but once my line of bats has been certified, I'm going to advertise the fact. So now U-Mass Lowell is in a very sticky position. Even though they have complied with the original agreement not to certify bats for anyone other than the NCAA or other baseball organizations, every bat manufacturer who has had a bat certified will cite that certification, and that puts U-Mass Lowell in violation of the agreement.
I do agree that U-Mass Lowell should have sat down with Baum a long time ago to iron this out. I would bet that Baum would have settled for a reasonable royalty fee per bat, and the testing center could have increased its fees accordingly. Instead, the lawyers got into it with a very predictable outcome. Now a valuable resource is in jeopardy of being closed, Baum and U-Mass Lowell have made a lot of lawyers able to send their kids somewhere other than U-Mass Lowell (a fine school with a number of innovative programs, by the way), and nobody goes away happy.
posted by Howard_T at 01:04 PM on May 20, 2010
It looks like the testing center was placed in a 'no win' situation by the maker of the testing machine. Baum, the machine's manufacturer allowed the testing center "to certify bats for the NCAA and other baseball organizations". Now, if you're a bat manufacturer and you want to sell bats to colleges, they have to be certified, and the NCAA goes to the testing center (U-Mass, Lowell) to have it done. So far, so good, but once my line of bats has been certified, I'm going to advertise the fact. So now U-Mass Lowell is in a very sticky position. Even though they have complied with the original agreement not to certify bats for anyone other than the NCAA or other baseball organizations, every bat manufacturer who has had a bat certified will cite that certification, and that puts U-Mass Lowell in violation of the agreement.
I believe the issue was that the center was testing bats directly for competitors (i.e., bats submitted by competitors), rather than simply issuing certifications to the NCAA regarding competitors' bats where the NCAA itself (or another organization) had submitted the bats directly. From the article:
Baum, who also manufactures composite bats and has sued both the NCAA and bat maker Hillerich & Bradsby, sold the testing machine to UMass-Lowell on the condition that it be used only to certify bats for the NCAA and other baseball organizations, not to perform commercial testing for his competitors. He alleged Sherwood violated the agreement by performing tests for numerous bat makers.
So I think the university would have been in the clear so long as it was not providing testing directly for the bat makers.
posted by holden at 01:34 PM on May 20, 2010
Umpires refused to use replay in Texas Ranger game, turning a homer into a double. Ended up not mattering since Texas won game anyway, but exactly what is purpose of replay review if umps won't even use it.
posted by graymatters at 04:00 PM on May 20, 2010
Once again the MLB shows its remarkable ability to evolve with the times.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:21 PM on May 20, 2010
To follow up graymatters' post, pigs fly...
posted by MeatSaber at 09:26 PM on May 20, 2010
Kevin Garnett explains "Lost" to Big Baby Davis
posted by rumple at 01:17 AM on May 21, 2010
All those aluminum vs. wooden bat performance statistics we cite? They might not be available anymore because the testing center that provides them to schools and the MLB has lost a second lawsuit related to their misuse of the testing machine. They used it in commercial tests for direct competitors of the firm that gave them the machine. It's unfortunate, but that feels like a hell of an "Oopsie!"