It's not about bad pub, or impact on funding, or reputation, or any of that stuff. It's simply about labeling bad behavior as bad behavior--not waiting to check the pulse of public reaction before deeming the behavior good or bad.
The guy acted like a jerk. Now, in the minds of some OU alumni, he's getting away with it.
I'm still not impressed with him.
Agreed. It was bad behavior. And it reflects poorly on:
1. The OU administration (the embarrassment of seeing your mascot do that on national TV -- and to find out he's not even a student there)
2. The mascots before him that actually took pride in representing the university (it was formerly under the jurisdiction of the cheerleading advisor and including tryouts, interviews, etc. to help ensure integrity -- not sure what happened, but you can see the consequences of it not being monitored/regulated)
3. Alumni. Did this get OU great publicity? It is publicity, but I'm not sure it is great publicity. I've been getting emails from co-workers here in Illinois who know I went to OU and are questioning me about it. From people who don't care for either OSU or OU, they think it was a pretty classless move to jump on Brutus. It wasn't a playful mascot fight, it was an unprovoked, pathetic-looking assault.
The fact that he's not even a student, had planned it for years and said he didn't care about being the mascot anymore makes outsiders and alumni alike think, "What in the name of Richard Dean Anderson is going on down there in Athens?"
This just joins the list of other recent noteworthy national headlines about OU (can we get more of the Hoya-like headlines, please?):
-Solich DUI
-Georgetown upset (awesome)
-Halloween
-#2 party school
-Mascot attack