Opinion: South Carolina Gamecocks, Southern Cal. Trojans should share 'USC'

25 Jan 2010 by Sean in Charleston Sports

I’m a Clemson grad.  I’m not a die-hard football fan.  Though I do watch Clemson football and basketball when I can.  Of course, I would never, ever root for the University of South Carolina on the field.  But I’m rooting for the garnet and black in the courtroom.

Last week, an appeals panel upheld a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruling that the letters ‘USC’ are the trademark of the University of Southern California no matter what color.  They ruled that USC in garnet and black might be confused with USC in cardinal and gold.

Big-money lawyers were getting cocky in the courtroom.  According to the L.A. Times, Scott Edelman, the attorney representing Southern Cal., “suggested that the letters were more deservedly linked to the Trojans’ warrior image than to ‘a goofy little chicken.’”

My question: so what if it’s confusing?

Now I could point out that the UXX formula often uses postal abbreviations.  Look at UNC, UVA, UGA: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia.  Why not USC?

But then again, “Universities of State” don’t always follow that formula.  The University of Vermont is know as UVM.  The University of Pennsylvania is known simply as Penn.  The University of Mississippi is Ole Miss.

But none of this should matter outside of casual chat.  None of this should have anything to do with trademark infringement.  But sadly, it’s all about money.

It’s all about the mighty dollar

For many students at big time football schools, going to college is mostly about having a good time and getting a diploma so you can get a job someday.

As Murray Sperber put it in Beer and Circus, How Big-Time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education, it’s “a four-year party—one long tailgater—with an $18,000 cover charge.”

University administrators know the power of college sports.  In 1984 when Doug Flutie threw a “hail Mary” to help Boston College to an upset win over the University of Miami in the NCAA football national championship, admissions applications to Boston College spiked the following Spring so dramatically that the phenomenon is actually known as the “Flutie factor.”

College football is a multi-billion dollar industry.  The ownership of the trademark ‘USC’ means the University of Southern California gets to make lots and lots of money from fans buying merchandise.  If it wasn’t for the cash involved, there would be no lawsuit.

There are schools that would like to pay the players

With all the money flying around, it’s a wonder why college football players don’t demand changes at the NCAA that would allow them to be paid.  But for the star players—the leaders on and off the field—lucrative pro sports contracts hang before them like carrots on a stick.  Hope is a powerful force, and it keeps them quiet—though it also keeps many of them from graduating if they’re good enough to play pro.

Sperber says, “There are schools that would like to pay the players. ... If the NCAA is found to be a cartel and guilty of antitrust, the closer we’ll come to day they have to pay the athletes.”

With money involved fighting for ‘USC,’ how is it fair that these athletes battle week-in and week-out over four years of their lives for unpaid glory?

But I digress.

College football is a big deal all over South Carolina.  The three-letter trademark coincidence is unfortunate for the USC in Columbia.  If there was a big time “University of Northern California,” would UNC be up for grabs as well?

I just don’t understand why two schools can’t share three letters, especially when this kind of naming convention is so common among universities in the U.S.

While a part of me hopes this leads to more Clemson-Carolina victories for Clemson, it’s just not fair to the Gamecocks.  No matter what the courts say, the only USC down here plays home games in Columbia, SC, goofy chicken or not.