Does the NCAA Have Reservations?

If you speak to me on any sort of regular basis, I'm sure you've heard me rant about the NCAA's mascot crusade- mandating that colleges with Native American-derived mascots or nicknames drop them for something politically correct, lest they get sanctioned and/or not shown on TV. We could go on about this for hours, but the crux is this:

The NCAA is terrified of offending anyone- not because they're so caring, but because that might make them lose money. They have deemed Native American mascots to be offensive. However, studies have shown that in general, people of Native American descent don't mind such mascots. What we have is a bunch of rich white guys in suits that are so afraid of offending a small group of people that they're forcing thousands of people to change. But that's neither here nor there.

I have a more specific issue, which I first noticed on Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column (which, by the way, is the smartest football column I've ever seen). The NCAA has decided that the college of William and Mary's logo is offensive, and they have to change it. Why is it offensive? It has two feathers on it, which is apparently a stereotypical assault on Native Americans. That's a stretch for sure. But what makes this more outrageous is that the University of Utah has received no such order. Check out their logo!

Now seriously folks, what's the difference? Why is a U with two feathers acceptable when a WM with two must be changed immediately? I'll tell you why- because Utah is a 22,000 student school with a strong football team and a fairly big fan base. William and Mary, on the other hand, is a little Division II school with about 5,000 students. By going after them, the NCAA can act like they are enforcing the rules, without actually affecting a school (or a logo) that people care about. This appeals directly to my number one pet peeve: Half-assedness. If you're going to have a rule, enforce it on everyone.

Which brings me to my main point: Why are they only focusing on Native American mascots? There are plenty of other mascots based on indigenous peoples, including (but not limited to) the USC Trojans, the San Diego State Aztecs, Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, and my #2 beloved Michigan State Spartans. How come it's okay to base savage mascots on these particular heritages, but not Native Americans? And lest we forget, the freaking Fighting Irish! Has their ever been a more offensive mascot that a little brawling Irish dude?

All I'm saying is if you're going to crusade against potentially offensive mascots, then do it across the board. Don't just pretend to care to appease people.