Often because it seems like you or other designers are.
Stuff like Nike claiming the same mass produced template represents the "iconic jaws of Husky Stadium" and "the horns of a razorback" for Washington and Arkansas stand out.
Or how Nike claimed that Syracuse, a team for a school in Upstate NY, had vertically stretched numbers to represent New York City's tall buildings.
Or how the Timberwolves claim the A sans crossbar in their wordmark represents a Viking rune for wolves. When in reality that rune means oxen.
As does some dweeb claiming a striping pattern used since the 1940s represents UCLA's "past, present, and future."
No, UCLA chose that striping pattern back then for one reason. Someone thought it looked good.
And I really don't get why you see that as a bad thing.
Why do the Dodgers have red front numbers on a primarily blue and white uniform? It looks good.
Why do the Blackhawks have different striping patterns on their home and road looks? It looks good.
Why do the Yankees wear pinstripes? It looks good.
Sometimes there's a deeper meaning to things. The Philadelphia Eagles chose their mascot to reflect FDR's NRA organisation meant to combat the depression for example.
Design companies really just embarrass themselves by trying to imply meaning to EVERYTHING though.
It does come up like you're all making stuff up when the claims seem ludicrous under the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
What's so wrong with saying "we made the Browns' orange brighter because we thought it contrasted better with brown than the older shade"? That seems like a perfectly fine explanation.
The real explanation of "it represents the passion of the Dawg Pound" is just ridiculous.
In order to properly pull off the "everything has meaning" you need to be both a philosopher and historian in addition to designer. And from what I've seen? Very few in your profession qualify as either. Let alone both.