The second week rankings are out and now we know something about how the new offenses are working. We also have a good idea about which defenses will dominate this season. But why didn't we see more of the mascots in this early coverage?
I was terribly disappointed with not seeing the Washington Huskies' mascot. It was like he didn't even show up at Autzen. Maybe this is a symptom of a much deeper problem. I believe the old saying of, "as the mascot goes, so goes the team."
Mascots play an incredibly important and vital role. The mascot is the embodiment of the heart and soul of the team. It graphically represents the history and the traditions of the school. We must pay greater attention to the mascots at Division I games. They are an inspiration for us all. A team without a mascot is like a day without sunshine.
How much attention can you really pay to a QB that's covered from head to toe by a helmet, shoulder pads, and knee pads and who knows what else? If it weren't for a number on their uniform you wouldn't even know who it was down there on the field.
But a mascot; there is no question who it is and for what they stand. One look at Puddles the Duck and you know that is Oregon. Who can miss Traveller and the USC Trojan? There can be no mistaking Sooner at an Oklahoma game.
It is a great disservice for television sports networks to not devote part of their coverage to the competing school's mascots at the games they cover. Even if you are a die-hard fan for the opposing team, the opposing mascot is at the very least cute—you've gotta love 'em a little.
The mascot is as much a part of the game of football as are the coaches, the teams and the games themselves. Television sports coverage has done college football and its fans a terrible wrong by not highlighting more of the mascots each and every week throughout the season.
We've got to fix this discrimination against mascots. This is a very serious problem.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!