"
You neatly avoided the issue of WFCC #1, which you raised. It makes no difference whether or not those text ""logos"" are ""official"", they are not used in any capacity on the uniforms or in the venues of the teams in question, and thus cannot serve as ""equivalent"" replacements for the logo that millions of people have been exposed to over decades and have come to recognize as THE identifier of the school's teams. The text logo might be used solely on the letterhead of the various team sports for all we know, but it certainly isn't used by the teams themselves, and thus doesn't serve the encyclopedic purpose of serving as an identifier for them. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that any encyclopedia (other than one manipulated by a few people who simply enjoy being disruptive) would ever have an article about USC football, basketball, etc. without providing the primary logo used by those teams. But I guess that's why my professors laugh when anyone asks if using Wikipedia as a reliable source is acceptable, and thanks to people like the two I've dealt with here, I guess they'll always be laughing when students ask that question. Congrats on perpetuating the stereotype!"