Why are blackholes generally not considered as solid spheres with an escape velocity FTL? I was reading Do Stars Vanish Into a Black Hole or Crash Against a Surface? A New Test Answers on space.com.
It says the following:

Another proposed alternative to event horizons is the &quot;hard surface
theory,&quot; which suggests that matter within a black hole is destroyed
by smashing into a solid surface. Instead of a singularity with no
surface area, the black hole is a giant mass with a hard surface, and
material being pulled closer — such as a star — would not actually
fall into a black hole, but hit this hard surface and be destroyed. If
that were the case, the collision should create a large burst of
light.

If we focus on the last sentence:

If that were the case, the collision should create a large burst of
light.

If the escape velocity of black hole becomes at certain altitude above the say solid surface of a blackhole more than that of speed of light, would we still see a large burst of light when the collision happens? Black holes are incredibly dense wouldn't it make more sense from them to be solid?
Something like a dark star.
No one really knows what happens to the matter at the singularity. Wouldn't it make sense that the reason that a black hole gets larger is due to more matter being smashed into the singularity making it gain mass. It also seems that black holes can be hurled out their galaxies, it must be in some form of matter that it stays together even when hurled out?
The idea of a hard surface on a black hole is very much a minority theory, bordering on a fringe theory. The reason is that general relativity is fairly well tested, and does not just predict event horizons around black holes but also the Buchdahl bound on how small objects in hydrostatic equilibrium can be. Still, it is always worth testing the theory, which is what the paper proposes.
If you drop an object from infinity onto an object of radius $R$ the Newtonian kinetic energy at that moment would be $GM/R$ J/kg, much of which would be released as a flash. This is why accretion onto white dwarfs and neutron stars produce a lot of radiation beside the accretion disk: for white dwarfs about 0.0003 of the mass-energy would be released, while for a neutron star 0.147 of the mass energy would be released. For a black hole-radius object this crude estimate produces 50% efficiency of converting mass into energy.
However, the energy of that flash is reduced by the gravitational redshift. At the Buchdahl limit the redshift is z=2, halving the energy received (for neutron stars you only get 74% of the energy). But for a black hole horizon general relativity  gives infinite redshift, making the flash disappear altogether.
It does not make sense to see black holes as solid objects since the structure of spacetime inside the event horizon makes the inward direction behave like time does outside: you can only move inward, just as you can only move forward in time. Thinking of the singularity as a material object with mass is very misleading: it is not even point-like. Hence talk about the density of a black hole or imagining it as a sphere of something dense tends to end in confusion. Similarly talking about escape velocity is also tricky: it does not define the horizon as people usually say. The horizon is defined by being a trapped surface that can only be crossed in one direction.