The logic behind the move actually comes from the US Olympic Committee. Sculling acounts for a good chunk of events at the world championships. The United States has rarely turned out competitive scullers. It was perceived, not without reason, that one of the main reasons we do not produce scullers is the dominance of our collegiate system in producing rowers, and that collegiate programs sweep instead of scull. Encourage colleges to add sculling, and we wiill have better scullers, or so the reasoning went. The USOC vowed to help support collegiate sculling programs. The NCAA, also noting that sculling was an olympic event which did not exist at any particularly high level in colleges, also wondered if it could encourage sculling. A few coaches pondered the idea, and one in particular, Jim Dietz at UMass, has championed it.
This all sounds harmless enough, until we stop to consider the consequences.
One of the nice aspects of collegiate rowing is that it is not Worlds. Everybody strives to race in the same boat class: the eight. Developing programs, plus some pathetic programs which seek to pot-hunt but not to grow, race in fours or even sometimes pairs. But the trend is upwards towards the big boats. With everyone competing in the same boat class, results do indeed mean something. There are different levels, leagues, and divisions, but everyone knows where everyone stands. The eight is it; it is all that is important.
Besides that, the eight is the most efficient way to go about training and boating crews. Programs can accommodate more rowers in eights than they could in smaller boats, and that means greater participation. With greater participation comes greater intra-squad competition. And with greater intra-squad competition comes higher standards.
A country is a lot bigger place than a college. A country can, therefore, support several different boatclasses and push each of its crews to the same competitive standard. Even so, some stacking is necessary (Redgrave and Pinsent rowed in the 2-, but were never considered in the running for the 8+ for obvious reasons, making the GB 8+ the priority boat minus those two - when Redgrave and Pinsent decided to switch into the 4-, the 4- had to become the priority boat). But countries have different resources. Even so, a small place like the Netherlands has had amazing success in the 8+, which is for most big countries the priority crew. But the Netherlands is still a lot larger a place than any US University. I do not think it possible for any US University to spread its top rowers out among several crews and still maintain a level - some crew must take priority.
So, if some crew takes priority, which will it be? If one year UMass stacked its 4X, Radcliffe its 4+, Brown its 2-, Princeton its 8+, UVA its 4-, and UNC its 2X, and each of those colleges won in its preferred event, what would it all mean? Absolutely nothing. Like is not being compared with like. Of course, more places could trot around claiming to be national champs in some event, which would have the sanction of the NCAA and would meet the delight of many an athletic director. But the overall level of rowing would fall from dissipated competition, and our sport would get worse, not better, from the additional events.
It is bad enough that the NCAA already sanctions a 4+ with no clear guidelines as to how colleges should construct that crew, in addition to the 8+s events. Once sculling comes into the mix, the whole system is bound to dissolve into nonsense.
I do not have anything against sculling as a sport. Indeed, I think it a great idea that college athletes try and become adept at sculling. If a college wants to buy a stack of small boats and train almost exclusively in them during the year, that is a good training ploy. Even racing in small boats is a good idea, provided the races in question are the Fall head races or out-of-season events which are done for added experience. Indeed, I have used this training technique myself (albeit on a smaller budget, when I had the entire Wolfson women's senior squad training in a 2- for an entire term - not the most efficient use of my time since we only owned one 2-, but a great way to develop the rowers). And although given the choice I would prefer to use a 2- instead of a sculling boat, I do indeed see the use for training in sculling boats (Notts County, from whom I have learned a lot, employs this technique, forming 8+s only at the last minute when necessary). But come race day when it matters, all crews should be lining up with their eyes on the same prize. Otherwise, racing won't mean a whole lot.
Sculling: good. Lots of it: could be good if done right. Racing the season with something other than 8+s as the priority boat (and with the 8+s ranked by speed - not stacking the second varsity as some unsporting places sometimes do): very very bad for healthy competition, at least at the collegiate level.
The problem is peculiarly American. In Britain, there is more sculling in general. Fewer elite rowers emerge from inside the collegiate system, and as a result there are ample opportunities for scullers to develop independent of collegiate rowing. Nevertheless, I do not see Britain being much more successful than the US in terms of producing scullers - but this demonstrates that the problem may not be the system. However, given the perceptions of the USOC and the NCAA, there will continue to be pressure on colleges to consider competitive sculling events during the regular Spring racing season.
I might add, however, another piece of advice for any rower who feels like developing after college: learn to scull. A lot of rowers on the US national team - indeed, sweep rowers - who have emerged either from small collegiate programs or from the second eights of established programs, have done so via sculling. A couple of years sculling beyond college, and determined rowers can make the breakthrough in sweep or scull which will propel them to consideration for the national team. Imagine if the rowers took some time in the small boats during college - that would indeed be an advantage to the individuals and to the program.
If colleges can, it is not a bad idea to buy small boats, money and rack space permitting. It is not essential, as many programs do quite well without small boat training. But in no way, shape, or form, should there be intercollegiate sculling.