Bryan, regarding the Nike patent application, a the smash factor was very low at the low end and the high end, but in line at 110 mph swing speed, which is strange. Do you suppose the Nike driver they used is crap at low speeds and very high speeds, but okay at 110?
As for the mention of the ProV1 in the example, but then the ProV1x in the conclusion, I think both are referring to the same ball as the numbers are the same. Don't know which ball.
As for your chart comparing Quintavalla with the Nike experiment, obviously your curve is wrong for the Nike example, as I don't think it was losing distance at the top end. More importantly,based on Quintavalla I think we have been assuming a straight line slope for balls below 90, but I don't think we should be. We don't know what happens below 90 mph with those balls. (If you try to back all the way down to zero mph, you can see that it can't be linear all the way down.) It could be that there is a big drop from 90 to 80 like in the Nike example, only not as severe. We just don't know, so I am not sure we should be making assumptions.
As for Rice's 46 yards difference, I am not as skeptical as you are. Rice's numbers for the Balata are somewhat in line with what I'd expect from various old patent applications. Maybe a bit low, but not crazy low. And his ProV1x numbers are in line with what I'd expect from someone with a ProV1x at around 110 mph. So maybe 46 yards is high, but I am not skeptical of the fact that he hit the ProV1 and ProV1x substantially farther than the Balata.
Looking at the chart, you friend hit the Balata somewhere in the high 270's but his ball speed was around 7 mph higher, was it not? If so, then the two numbers for the Balata are comparable, are they not?