NCAA Logic

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-indiannicknames&prov=ap&type=lgns

The NCAA's decision to ban Indian nicknames and mascots from postseason tournaments is filled with a lot of questions... and I'm not talking about whether or not such nicknames should be allowed in the first place.

Instead, it's looking at what constitutes logic in the NCAA these days.

First, the easy one to figure out...

Major college football teams are not subject to the ban because there is no official NCAA tournament.

Actually, it's clearly the fact that the NCAA doesn't want to have to answer to those sponsors of the major bowl games any questions they may have. It's also the reason why you'll never see an actual tournament for football. Can't lose those sponsorships, after all.

But wait, it gets better. In explaining why the Florida State Seminoles are not allowed to use their mascot in postseason tourneys, despite having permission from the Seminole tribe in Florida:

``Other Seminole tribes are not supportive,'' said Charlotte Westerhaus, the NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion.

But then we get this:

One school, North Carolina-Pembroke -- which uses the nickname Braves -- will also be exempted because Brand said the school has historically had a high percentage of students, more than 20 percent, who are American Indians.

So let's see here... one tribe gives permission for a college to use a nickname, others do not support it, so not acceptable. However, if a high percentage of the college's students are American Indians, this implies that every single American Indian supports the college using that nickname.

How's that for logic, eh?