Tattoos?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But what were you going to do about it? Were you going to fight a battle that you had no right to uphold? Would you not allow the team to play on the road or in a tournament?

Peace

*Off-topic Alert!*

Kind of like the NCAA banning schools with Indian mascots from hosting tournament games? Kind of like sending the Illinois women's soccer team down to Florida State for their NCAA tournament game, instead of Illinois hosting Florida State?

(Ok, back to your regularly-scheduled thread.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

*Off-topic Alert!*

Kind of like the NCAA banning schools with Indian mascots from hosting tournament games? Kind of like sending the Illinois women's soccer team down to Florida State for their NCAA tournament game, instead of Illinois hosting Florida State?

(Ok, back to your regularly-scheduled thread.)

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, but the NCAA did this not individual officials. For the record the NCAA allowed FSU to use their mascot and logos because the Seminole Tribe in Florida signed off on the use of those images. Also the Seminole Tribe was largely involved in the usage of these images and customs. Illinois just made up some Native American image and created some dance that had no religious or cultural significance. Actually the Illini represents no tribe or any organization in any way. Also this has been a hot button issue throughout the State of Illinois for years with the fact this is also a State funded uniform.

Now if the IHSA decided to get rid of a school if there are not changes with mascot or logo that is a different story. And this was done with Pekin and their offensive mascot name several years ago.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make,

Actually, the point I was trying to make was pointing out the difficulty of trying to determine what is offensive, and what isn't. In this instance, the NCAA made the blanket policy that all Indian mascots are considered offensive and racist. Since they cannot (supposedly) dictate to member schools what mascot they use, the NCAA determined they can dictate what schools host post-season tournament games, based on those mascots. This is obviously a money issue, as the NCAA is hoping to influence the schools by depriving them of the revenue from those post-season games. In the case of Florida State, the reason the Seminole Tribe signed off on the use of the mascot is because the university donates a large amount of money to the tribe.

You're not exactly correct about the U of I's symbol; it is based upon the Illinwek tribe, which was largely based in Illinois, but is a currently extinct tribe.

So, there just seems to be a bit of hypocrasy in the NCAA's position. It is very obvious it is a money issue, not a moral one. If Indian mascots are offensive, then they all are, not just the ones who didn't contribute large amounts of money to the (apparently non-offended) tribe. In the case of the U of I, since there are no current tribe members available to contribute towards, that symbol must be offensive. But who's offended? Certainly not any of the specific tribal members. It was just extremely ironic that the situation played out where the U of I, home of the (offensive?) Chief Illiniwek, was not allowed to host that game, and had to travel to Florida State, home of the (non-offensive?) Seminoles?

So, who gets to make the decision as to what is offensive and what isn't? You and I might have differing opinions, so if we're working a game together with a player that has a Confederate flag tatoo, it might be offesive to you but mean absolutely nothing to me. Should we arm-wrestle to see if you get to tell the player it should be covered, or I get to tell him to play on? Rock, paper, scissors, perhaps?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It is very obvious it is a money issue, not a moral one.

I don't follow.

[Adam]

I think what M&M means is that the NCAA isn't all that interested in the moral issue if it's too hard on their bottom line. See also the University of Minnesota's half-azz stance on the issue (canceling all non-hockey contests against the University of North Dakota) for further evidence of this.
The NCAA is only interested, with this issue anyway, of appeasing a vocal minority of native american descendants.

[HawkeyeCubP]

A good discourse on the topic (including a statement that there actually are descendents of the Illiniwek, and that they do object to the U of I's mascot use): http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ive_americans/

A decent, fairly unbiased article on the topic: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sport...cots_8-25.html

The NCAA's original release:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p..._comm_rls.html

Incidentally, I still don't understand how the NCAA's position can be characterized as one of money. I haven't read through/into anything in their releases or official policy that leads me to think that.


Edited to include:

I think that if the NCAA were concerned that much about its bottom line and profit margins (especially at its Championships, where it makes much of its money), they would've/could've avoided this issue (as it is an extremely controversial one that would invoke much resistance from its member institutions), and kept it out of the public eye for the most part, and, instead, chose not to put policies into place regarding alcohol at its Championships (see bottom section of the last linked article on the NCAA's website).

I'm not suggesting that the NCAA is perfect, all-knowing, always in the right, not at all concerned with monetary issues, etc., etc.,, but I'm not convinced this one is a financial issue, yet.

[Adam]

Maybe it's better said that money has a way of mitigating the NCAA's moral stance.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

A decent, fairly unbiased article on the topic: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sport...cots_8-25.html.

PMJI...

PBS has never done anything that was unbiased.

The NCAA has hypocrisy as an organizational creed.

As to the NCAA's motives in granting exceptions from this policy not being about money... in whose universe? This was a product of the internal NCAA Executive Committee Subcommittee On Gender And Diversity Issues, which, since it was created HAD to do something to justify its existance.

Once the NCAA bans the little lepraucaun and the nickname "Fighting Irish", then I'll know they are serious about ethnic slurs in college mascots. After all, which is more offensive: a mascot associating an ethnic group with drunken brawls, or a mascot (e.g. "Fighting Sioux") based on an honorable warrior?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You're not exactly correct about the U of I's symbol; it is based upon the Illinwek tribe, which was largely based in Illinois, but is a currently extinct tribe.

Well that may or may not be true based on who you talk about. I am just repeating what has been said by many representatives in the Native American community. That is a debate we can have, but I do not claim to be the most knowledgable about the entire debate. But I have lived in this state pretty much all my life and I do remember many battles over this mascot and many other issues involving Native Americans and it has always been said that the Chief Illinwek does not belong to a bonefided tribe. We will just have to disagree on this one.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, there just seems to be a bit of hypocrasy in the NCAA's position. It is very obvious it is a money issue, not a moral one. If Indian mascots are offensive, then they all are, not just the ones who didn't contribute large amounts of money to the (apparently non-offended) tribe. In the case of the U of I, since there are no current tribe members available to contribute towards, that symbol must be offensive. But who's offended? Certainly not any of the specific tribal members. It was just extremely ironic that the situation played out where the U of I, home of the (offensive?) Chief Illiniwek, was not allowed to host that game, and had to travel to Florida State, home of the (non-offensive?) Seminoles?

I will put it this way. When people who look nothing like the depictions of the mascot have a problem with the depiction then that is a completely different issue than a bunch of people that are not depicted telling everyone how non-offensive something is. There are not a lot of Native Americans that go to that school or that attend games.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, who gets to make the decision as to what is offensive and what isn't? You and I might have differing opinions, so if we're working a game together with a player that has a Confederate flag tatoo, it might be offesive to you but mean absolutely nothing to me. Should we arm-wrestle to see if you get to tell the player it should be covered, or I get to tell him to play on? Rock, paper, scissors, perhaps?

Remember I did not say I would not allow a kid to play. I might draw a conclusion about that kid and his behavior, but he/he would still play in my game. Remember the Pekin nickname was not offensive to a lot of people and they had to change it in the end.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Just to answer a few of the points that were brought up - I still believe the basic issue with the NCAA has to do with money. Maybe not directly with the NCAA's bottom line, but it's financial nontheless. You can draw many similarities between the Chief Illiniwek symbol at the U of I, and the Chief Osceola symbol at Florida State. Both are portrayed by members of completely different race. Both do a "routine" not necessarily based on total historical accuracy (although I believe Chief Osceola is based upon an actual person in history). Both are considered offensive by (some? many?) Native Americans. So why is Florida State allowed to keep Chief Osceola, and host post-season NCAA tournament games (and thus the revenues associated with them), while Illinois is not? Because Florida State contributes a large amount to the Seminole Tribe; in return the Tribe agrees to accept the symbol. Money rules. If the NCAA was pure in their intention that they rid their member schools of all possible offensive symbols, then it should be all of them. Not just the ones that haven't bribed (oops, contributed to) the right causes.

HawkeyeCubP - the article you suggested: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ive_americans/ has a great final paragraph about a survey done by Sports Illustrated in 2002. It shows 81% of Native Americans that responded said they disagreed with the suggestion that schools stop using Native American mascots.

So who is being offended?

Ok, I didn't mean to hijack the topic, but just wanted to point out it's very difficult to define what's offensive. So we, as officials, shouldn't be put in a position to have to rule on such items in a game situation. That should be handled at a school, district, state or federal level.