I call them boys because I refuse to call cheaters men..
Dan4, It’s interesting, you attempting to change the debate to baseball size fields, when I refered to “larger, or even baseball fields”...it’s a more advantageous argue for you. You can look at my post on this thread if you doubt my quotations.
I understand you were not around but...there was a time 300 was maximum regulation...so “larger” refers to all things over 300, baseball being just one of the type...
so..is it possible for you to go back to your list of events and show just how many are actually fields larger then 300? So we can both be on the same page about how many big usssa upper events are on “larger” fields?
Heck...I think? Usssa even built the new complex with larger fields even though some of them have usual strong winds blowing in.
You see....there are two ways other then the ball to eliminate the most of the PED advantage..the first is small fields that reward bat control..the second is super large fields that eliminate almost all homeruns..neither is what usssa did whensteriods became prominent.
When steroids became the norm in major softball...usssa regulated the playing field dimensions to a point of almost only PED teams could win...and guess what...the elites almost to a boy... HaD to start using PED.
As a test...it would be interesting if the new complex put temp fences at 300 on all fields and a blind draw was done for which game was placed on which field and when... do you have any doubt that would lead to more “upsets”?
I only use the word upset because based on most of the top/most important conference points events being played on lager fields or under hard to hit homerun conditions it would “seem” like an upset because the points system is flawed.