look, cohen did a nice job explaining the reason behind doing it, and there is some validity to what he said, however, it looks like **** and not many ncaa teams have half the base path in astroturf and the other half in dirt....thats the reality of it. think about it....hitting an inside the park homer will require sprinting 90 feet of plastic grass (or whatever polymer they use for that ****), 180 feet of dirt, then another 90 feet of plastic grass. i would be totally ok with it if it wasnt plastic grass on the base paths...it was a good idea with good thought behind it with terrible execution (as some have already said). the only thing that makes sense is the reps taken on turf vs grass/dirt...but if that is the rational behind it, why not do the whole damn field vandy style with 15 foot stolen base slides? thoughtful response by cohen, but i would rather have continuous base paths...but i dont claim to know anything about the physics involved with running on 2 different surfaces or whether or not those 2 surfaces would have a significant impact on the game being played.
could you imagine a football field that was half astroturf, half grass? from the perspective of the base path, that is exactly the scenario we have. hopefully, it will forever be a non-factor.
yall remember those home-base slides at louisville and vandy? those players were coming in HOT and most players were not accustomed to the dynamics of sliding on turf vs dirt. a head-first slide could end very badly for the runner with that much momentum.
whatever, im done bitching about it. i dont like it, but there is nothing i can do....just hope it works out for the best. who knows, maybe it could be an advantage we can exploit.