NCAA Asininity

In August the NCAA announced that it would ban any team from participating in or hosting tournaments if their team or mascot’s names were based upon Native American tradition and also encourages other teams from scheduling games with the offending parties. The difficulties presented within the association itself arise mostly from exemptions. Perhaps more relevant are the Third-Party interests involved. Traditional contract law would dictate that the agreements between the tribes which have financial interest in sports teams would give those same tribes legal standing against the NCAA in court. Now, it's tempting to go on a rant here about the Constitutional ideas of free speech, standing, interstate commerce, and any other number of issues surrounding the freedom that we savour; however, that would be pointless (though probably fun) because the NCAA is a soveregin institution within its own field; its rules are not subject to the United States Constitution but its establishign charter and bylaws. Sorry, Ann Coulter, I just can't be you today. There are other reasons to complain about this, though, mostly built around the simple economics of the sports industry and the Third Party interest presented by the tribes bearing the same names which are being forbidden on the field.
Florida State University has appealed the ban and is acting as the convoy for a class-action lawsuit against the Association; however this may be difficult due to the unique situation at FSU. Traditionally, FSU has hosted tournaments in swimming, tennis, and other NCAA sports, but its breadwinner is its football program. The NCAA does not host football tournaments, so this program would be exempt from the ban. In addition to the technical sticking points provided by the football situation, FSU is unique because its merchandise is endorsed by the Florida Seminole tribe, which is also the main recipient of that profit. Further complicating FSU’s legal woes is the ardent disapproval by other branches of the Seminole tribe outside the state of Florida of the traditions and names involved in the FSU athletic experience which involve Native American symbols, activities, and figures. Chief among the offenders is the football tradition in which a man dressed as an Indian, named “Chief Osceola,” charges onto the field mounted on a pinto pony and then hurls a flaming spear into the turf.
Perhaps a better school for the NCAA to face in court would be Central Michigan. The Chippewa tribe native to that area is not financially involved in the sale of gear but heartily endorses the sports teams bearing its name due to the awareness of the tribe promoted by the school. Schools with a large enough percentage of students claiming Native American descent may still participate under the same name. The first school to take advantage of that loophole is …?... some school in NC with an unusually high percentage of the student body claiming Native American heritage.
Beyond the obvious PC-pandering political issues, the ban raises questions about race-based exemptions as well as a slippery slope of political action initiatives. PETA has since filed a similar suit attempting to ban teams with names of animals that are either violent in nature or have a history of mistreatment, e.g. the University of South Carolina Gamecocks. Although cockfighting is illegal in South Carolina, and the name therefore cannot in any way serve as an encouragement to potential fight-baiters, PETA has filed a Third-Party case against the school.
Two schools which I consider the Father and the Son of collegiate athletic deity could be considered particularly politically offensive would be Indiana University and the University of North Carolina. The Hoosiers and Tarheels may at first seem like invented mascots, but the origins of both of these names – though not offensive to Native Americans - lie in cultural lore which could be seen as less than positive to other minorities. In Indiana the term “Hoosier” was used as a derogatory slang term for someone backwards – uneducated, uncultured, and unwelcome in higher social circles. We don't have the Marshall University Rednecks; now why is "Hoosier" acceptable? “Tarheel” is even worse; the two stories of this moniker’s origin are rooted in the racial tension surrounding the mid-1800s. The more widely-recognized story is that during the Civil War troops from other states turned tail while the North Carolina unit stayed and fought. The general, impressed by their courage, said that someone ought to have put the tar which was North Carolina's biggest indsutry at the time on the feet of the soldiers who had run. The less popular and more politically incorrect version is that the general had said that the tar should be put on the heels of slaves to keep them from running away.
Perhaps one of the greatest negative consequences of the NCAA's politically correct, labor-intensive, bureaucratic, stalinistically fundamentalist move is that for many of these tribes the last tie to their heritage is found in the teams which bear their name. The public awareness caused by some of our society's heroes bearing a team's name into our postmodern battle arena - the stadium - is valuable far beyond the token step towards "social progress" by the NCAA. As the daughter of a German immigrant, I would be thrilled to run around drunk, foaming at the mouth and hollering for the victory of the Evansville Krauts. I'd be proud, because my heritage would be associated with the struggles of our modern-day warriors. It's not slander; it's a compliment.
My father always said that "all war is economic." In the case of this controversy this is certainly true - especially for Florida State. But perhaps that statement shouldn't be credited, because Dad's a Hoosier...

...and we all know how backwards Hoosiers are.