Battle of the Columnists: NCAA expansion

There’s been much talk about the imminent expansion of the field of 65 in college basketball to a field of 68, about college football’s ever-changing conference landscape, and mention of conferences ballooning to include as many 16 teams. On these topics, Bruin staffers Farzad Mashhood and Sam Strong face off. It’s a battle of new versus old with the outgoing sports editor, Mashhood, facing his formidable successor, Strong.

The big dance, Division I men’s basketball tournament, is expanding to 68 teams. Thoughts?

Sam Strong: I’m glad they saved us the heartache of going to 96 teams. However, as it stands now, who really watches the Tuesday night play-in game? Some meaningless team goes on to get crushed by the No. 1 overall seed. Now we’re going to have four of these meaningless games? Bad move.

Farzad Mashood: More play-in games? That first one is OK because it gives the NCAA Tournament a silly game to kick things off, but four of these jokes? No play-in winner has made it past the first round and adding three more is just to get more attention and more money for the NCAA.

The Big Ten wants to add as many as five teams, and more big money conferences are likely to follow. Good or bad?

Strong: I like it. This presents an opportunity for teams that are on the edge of becoming a national presence to compete with the big boys. They’ve already shown they can (BSU over OU in 2007 and Utah over Alabama in 2009). This does make the smaller conferences even more irrelevant than they already are.

Mashood: Where’s the line? Sixteen teams in a conference? Take it easy, Big Ten. I can’t imagine how an athletic conference can maintain familiarity and competition within more than 10 or 12 teams and 16 is just a headache. It’s just athletic program-gentrification. The fancy conferences just push out everyone else.

Do you think Notre Dame will enter a conference and how do you think this could affect the landscape of college football?

Strong:Given Notre Dame’s history of acting like elitists and turning down offers to power conferences, I don’t think so. Why would they? They get a BCS bowl berth if they finish in the top eight right now and they’re always overrated in the preseason polls. That’s yet another example as to why the BCS is screwed up.

Mashood:Well said, young grasshopper. But rather than whining about the BCS system, I’ll answer the question. Notre Dame definitely will not join a conference, so the landscape of college football will not change. It remains to be seen whether the landscape of Notre Dame’s football program will change with the arrival of Brian Kelly.

How will conference expansion affect non-revenue sports?

Strong:In most respects, it won’t. The Bruins have five teams competing in the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation right now as opposed to the Pac-10. Also, the non-revenue sports don’t feature monopolistic organizations such as the BCS, so I see a mostly seamless transition. Lead on to national championship No. 20, coach Scates.

Mashood:It’s just going to make the disparity between football and men’s basketball, and the rest of college sports even greater. Conferences will only realign for the sake of football and men’s basketball programs, leaving other sports out to dry. Where is the men’s volleyball love?

How will conference expansion affect UCLA’s recruiting?

Strong:Based on coach Rick Neuheisel’s most recent recruiting class and Ben Howland’s habit of pulling down some highly touted recruits, I don’t see a change in recruiting. The Bruins don’t need to worry about losing out on recruits to potential Pac-10 newcomers, but they’ll still have to do battle with the national powerhouses.

Mashood:UCLA’s recruiting will be mostly the same in men’s basketball ““ that is, it will be unpredictable. Football recruiting could change, but only for the best. Conference expansion will have more of the big money East Coast teams beating each other up, making the sun and waves of Los Angeles even more appealing.