A moral question

Consider this: The NCAA, in an effort to be PC has declared that schools that have Indian mascots should change their names because it could be considered harmful, or wrong to native Americans. Almost instantly, that got slapped down by the Florida State Seminoles, who actually have a contractual agreement with the Seminole nation. So the NCAA relented. Now they are saying that University of North Dakota wont be allowed to host holding postseason tournaments, or from using their nicknames during road playoff games. A judges ruling currently has that blocked pending a hearing. All of this because UND's mascot is "The Fighting Sioux." The NCAA is now fighting the injunction because they say it limits their ability to regulate their own tourneys and playoffs. UND says that it's a anti-trust violation. So I'm sure that everyone will lawyer up and waste money over that. My question is, does the NCAA have the right to mandate what is acceptable in a schools name over the quasi-judgment over what "might be" offensive to native Americans? I'm sure that if you looked long enough you'll find a native American that doesn't like it. But do they have the right to have it changed? Or should that only reside in the Sioux nation? For that matter, why stop with the Indian names? Shouldn't we ban the "fighting Irish" or "The USC trojans" or the Purdue "Boilermakers." I'm sure some Utahan hates the "demon deacons" or the "Blue Devils." Where does the identity specialization end? Who has the final say? Personally, I'm part of the "if you don't like the name then tough crap" crowd, but looking at the situational ethics of the NCAA's ruling I'm wondering how long it will be before the Alabama Crimson tide" has it's name changed due to injustice towards red algae. Any thoughts? Cross-posted at Say Anything