|
Post by Steve Aztec on Jan 2, 2011 22:22:53 GMT -8
And Rulon, thanks for the kind comments. The time we 4 spent together on that project will never go away in our memories. You pretty much hit it on the head with your post. I am shocked at the skepticism on this topic by some. It reminds me a lot of the skepticism at the end of the Monty days. No, they would NEVER remove Monty Montezuma as the mascot. Steve, why do I get the feeling that if it were anybody else that brought this subject up, they wouldn't get anywhere near the the same backlash. Probably a carry over from other subjects.(Long) Absolutely correct. People don't like it when you disagree with them. And then they hold grudges. People can't separate the two issues. Because they disagree with me on Chuck Long, I MUST be wrong on Zuma. That is such a strange mindset to me. It is such a narrow minded mindset. And if people are tired of Zuma topics at this time? Heaven help them, because this one is not going away anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by firemedic619 on Jan 2, 2011 22:38:37 GMT -8
It's nice to finally have some concrete answers with names and links, etc.
But what I don't understand is this. The idea of Zuma was so hated as an idea. Yet, Rulon made it sound like Zuma was approved because they couldn't say "no" to Brian Sipe. Why couldn't you guys say no to Zuma, but yes to everything else?
And it's absolutely ridiculous that SDSU doesn't pay squat for it's own namesake, but it does for Zuma. Why couldn't this issue be brought up and corrected? Obviously this information was only known to a select few. But why can't we get word out to the masses and make something happen?
|
|
|
Post by montyismyhomie on Jan 2, 2011 23:12:46 GMT -8
steve i have disagreed with you on other topics but i hope you stay on top of this for all of our sakes.
|
|
Rulon
New Recruit
Posts: 46
|
Post by Rulon on Jan 3, 2011 1:21:36 GMT -8
It's nice to finally have some concrete answers with names and links, etc. But what I don't understand is this. The idea of Zuma was so hated as an idea. Yet, Rulon made it sound like Zuma was approved because they couldn't say "no" to Brian Sipe. Why couldn't you guys say no to Zuma, but yes to everything else? And it's absolutely ridiculous that SDSU doesn't pay squat for it's own namesake, but it does for Zuma. Why couldn't this issue be brought up and corrected? Obviously this information was only known to a select few. But why can't we get word out to the masses and make something happen? To some extent it is our own fault. The committee of 10 started out strong, even getting the Alumni Association agree to fund TWO people to serve as the Aztec Warrior so that we could cover more events. The idea was to have the "new" hire learn the ropes for a year while the "old" hire was still in school. That way there would be a continuation. It is not easy to be the mascot. People will ALWAYS unfairly compare the current Warrior to Carlos Gutierrez. No one will ever be able to replace him. It takes a special personality to fill the mascot role. We were also particularly interested in having the mascot go to the several local street fairs and festivals. Chet Carney has always advocated this, and we attempted to put it into action. Unfortunately, the committee was left to fund the entire project alone. No financial support from SDSU. Over time the makeup of the Warrior committee changed. After three years of hitting his head up against the brick wall that is the SDSU administration, the committee chairman, Bruce Johnson, resigned from the committee. Steve Anderson also left for personal reasons. I do not blame them in the least. It was a thankless job. No one replaced these two and the committee dwindled in size. It also was unable to put into place any of the suggestions and did not have the funding to maintain two people in the mascot role. This past year the committee was advised of the new traditions developed by Brian Sipe. This was done as a courtesy since those ideas included the use of the Aztec Warrior and his shield and spear. We rightly had no authority to veto anything. The decision had already been made by Steve Schnall of the athletic department to include a new, supplemental mascot. Schnall has been trying for 8 years to push this through and he finally found his opening. By calling Zuma a "supplemental character" and not a mascot he was able to circumvent the Alumni Association Warrior committee. This is how he presents it to the news media -- I could not find a link to the interview he gave one local news station after Zuma was introduced but that is what he said. We were told that Zuma would be a kid-friendly, cuddly character who would not go onto the field. Instead, what we got was a full-blown second mascot with his own "Growl" and introduction. Zuma gets more airtime on the stadium scoreboard than the Aztec Warrior. He often comes out with the basketball team and prances around center court before the games. Face it, he is now SDSU's SECOND mascot and the only one who is funded by the University. As a result of this Zuma character, I too finally resigned from the committee in September after the first football game. I had been lied to too many times. If the name Monty is disrespectful, then the name Zuma is also. If there isn't enough money to fund the Aztec Warrior's expenses, then there isn't enough money to fund Zuma either. When negotiating with SDSU for the return of the warrior, we were told that the University would not allow the long spear to be used, especially not to be planted into the football field in front of the visiting team bench because THIS was not historically accurate. But suddenly the long spear returns. And suddenly the arguments made against us are no longer valid?! As I said, I have been lied to by the University too many times. And so few people really care anyway. After all, most of you say, "Hey what's the big deal? It is just a mascot. It isn't hurting anything." All I can say is, this next time (which some of us believe is happening as we speak) there will not be an Aztec Warrior Foundation to come to save the mascot. Welcome to SDSU, Mr. byWho kitty cat!
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 3, 2011 5:55:39 GMT -8
Thanks Rulon.
Thanks Steve for your nails-on advocacy.
Thanks too to Bruce, Pbaztec and the others on the original board/committee for your efforts, and my AWF Gear!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Aztec on Jan 3, 2011 7:33:09 GMT -8
It's nice to finally have some concrete answers with names and links, etc. But what I don't understand is this. The idea of Zuma was so hated as an idea. Yet, Rulon made it sound like Zuma was approved because they couldn't say "no" to Brian Sipe. Why couldn't you guys say no to Zuma, but yes to everything else? And it's absolutely ridiculous that SDSU doesn't pay squat for it's own namesake, but it does for Zuma. Why couldn't this issue be brought up and corrected? Obviously this information was only known to a select few. But why can't we get word out to the masses and make something happen? I can't answer as to why the committee couldn't say no to Brian Sipe. I wasn't on the committee at that time.
|
|
|
Post by KickAztec on Jan 3, 2011 7:40:42 GMT -8
It's nice to finally have some concrete answers with names and links, etc. But what I don't understand is this. The idea of Zuma was so hated as an idea. Yet, Rulon made it sound like Zuma was approved because they couldn't say "no" to Brian Sipe. Why couldn't you guys say no to Zuma, but yes to everything else? And it's absolutely ridiculous that SDSU doesn't pay squat for it's own namesake, but it does for Zuma. Why couldn't this issue be brought up and corrected? Obviously this information was only known to a select few. But why can't we get word out to the masses and make something happen? The only thing I know to do is start the email campaign to those individuals listed on this and the other thread on the topic. I'm sending mine today.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Aztec on Jan 3, 2011 7:53:21 GMT -8
It's nice to finally have some concrete answers with names and links, etc. But what I don't understand is this. The idea of Zuma was so hated as an idea. Yet, Rulon made it sound like Zuma was approved because they couldn't say "no" to Brian Sipe. Why couldn't you guys say no to Zuma, but yes to everything else? And it's absolutely ridiculous that SDSU doesn't pay squat for it's own namesake, but it does for Zuma. Why couldn't this issue be brought up and corrected? Obviously this information was only known to a select few. But why can't we get word out to the masses and make something happen? The only thing I know to do is start the email campaign to those individuals listed on this and the other thread on the topic. I'm sending mine today. E-mails need to be sent and they need to be professional. No need for name calling. And I might add that the pressure needs to put on continuously. Dr. Weber Steve Schnall Jim Herrick Jim Sterk If traditions mean anything to fans at all, it is now time to speak up for we lose them forever. Monty Montezuma and the Aztec Warrior are our greatest tradition. If we lose it again, we will never get it back. ___________________________________________________ My suggestion would be to ask for the Ban On Zuma. Zuma has never been for the kids.
Zuma has been forced on the fans and is intended to be the replacement of the Aztec Warrior.
Until Zuma is extinct, Steve Schnall will continue to try and undermine the mascot committee and the Aztec Warrior.
|
|
|
Post by AztecFemBone on Jan 3, 2011 8:15:09 GMT -8
Dammit, Rulon, quit clouding this argument with facts!
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jan 3, 2011 8:46:31 GMT -8
In the realities and complexities of life, this mascot stuff is silly. But, since a vast majority thinks it's important, I would do a couple of things. First, put extreme pressure on the administartion to get rid of Schnall. Not only for this issue, but for the lack of marketing and promotion over the years. Nothing pissed me off more this year at the games than having that idiot leading the warrior walk. He represents what is wrong with the athletic department. I could go on and on......... Secondly, even if disgruntled Monty is copyrighted, I would still go out and make your own "custom" gear with MONTY on it. If the school says anything, stop donating. For christ's sake, the Aztecs are a dead society like spartans and trojans. They ain't apaches, so screw the administartion and as alums keep pressureing.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Jan 3, 2011 9:13:21 GMT -8
I hate the cat more than I hate Mehdi's game.
'Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by campanile on Jan 3, 2011 9:14:05 GMT -8
It's nice to finally have some concrete answers with names and links, etc. But what I don't understand is this. The idea of Zuma was so hated as an idea. Yet, Rulon made it sound like Zuma was approved because they couldn't say "no" to Brian Sipe. Why couldn't you guys say no to Zuma, but yes to everything else? And it's absolutely ridiculous that SDSU doesn't pay squat for it's own namesake, but it does for Zuma. Why couldn't this issue be brought up and corrected? Obviously this information was only known to a select few. But why can't we get word out to the masses and make something happen? To some extent it is our own fault. The committee of 10 started out strong, even getting the Alumni Association agree to fund TWO people to serve as the Aztec Warrior so that we could cover more events. The idea was to have the "new" hire learn the ropes for a year while the "old" hire was still in school. That way there would be a continuation. It is not easy to be the mascot. People will ALWAYS unfairly compare the current Warrior to Carlos Gutierrez. No one will ever be able to replace him. It takes a special personality to fill the mascot role. We were also particularly interested in having the mascot go to the several local street fairs and festivals. Chet Carney has always advocated this, and we attempted to put it into action. Unfortunately, the committee was left to fund the entire project alone. No financial support from SDSU. Over time the makeup of the Warrior committee changed. After three years of hitting his head up against the brick wall that is the SDSU administration, the committee chairman, Bruce Johnson, resigned from the committee. Steve Anderson also left for personal reasons. I do not blame them in the least. It was a thankless job. No one replaced these two and the committee dwindled in size. It also was unable to put into place any of the suggestions and did not have the funding to maintain two people in the mascot role. This past year the committee was advised of the new traditions developed by Brian Sipe. This was done as a courtesy since those ideas included the use of the Aztec Warrior and his shield and spear. We rightly had no authority to veto anything. The decision had already been made by Steve Schnall of the athletic department to include a new, supplemental mascot. Schnall has been trying for 8 years to push this through and he finally found his opening. By calling Zuma a "supplemental character" and not a mascot he was able to circumvent the Alumni Association Warrior committee. This is how he presents it to the news media -- I could not find a link to the interview he gave one local news station after Zuma was introduced but that is what he said. We were told that Zuma would be a kid-friendly, cuddly character who would not go onto the field. Instead, what we got was a full-blown second mascot with his own "Growl" and introduction. Zuma gets more airtime on the stadium scoreboard than the Aztec Warrior. He often comes out with the basketball team and prances around center court before the games. Face it, he is now SDSU's SECOND mascot and the only one who is funded by the University. As a result of this Zuma character, I too finally resigned from the committee in September after the first football game. I had been lied to too many times. If the name Monty is disrespectful, then the name Zuma is also. If there isn't enough money to fund the Aztec Warrior's expenses, then there isn't enough money to fund Zuma either. When negotiating with SDSU for the return of the warrior, we were told that the University would not allow the long spear to be used, especially not to be planted into the football field in front of the visiting team bench because THIS was not historically accurate. But suddenly the long spear returns. And suddenly the arguments made against us are no longer valid?! As I said, I have been lied to by the University too many times. And so few people really care anyway. After all, most of you say, "Hey what's the big deal? It is just a mascot. It isn't hurting anything." All I can say is, this next time (which some of us believe is happening as we speak) there will not be an Aztec Warrior Foundation to come to save the mascot. Welcome to SDSU, Mr. byWho kitty cat! It's good of you to come forward and frame the argument with substantive inside info and a detailed run down of past events and players. You have provided plenty of very good information to consider. Speaking for myself, I needed more than what Steve had to offer in order to take this issue more seriously. I'm not one to believe something just because some guy said I should. I like to hear some facts and some details...a good argument, and you have provided that. Thank you. I'm still not convinced that SDSU is phasing out the Warrior; there's too much evidence to suggest the opposite. Much of the inside workings of the Monty debate you highlight for us is going on 10 years old. I'm not sure the political climate at SDSU surrounding the mascot is the same as it was 10 years ago. It seems there are old wounds and lingering hard feelings between the AWF and Schnall. I now can understand why thanks to you, but I'm not sure it means Schnall is hell bent on getting rid of the Warrior. It's good that some here are extra vigilant, and I'll be ready to join them if the school does move to get rid of the Warrior. I still don't appreciate those who claim it's a FACT that the Warrior is being phased out, but I do appreciate you coming forward with more information other than just "kill Zuma, he's phasing out the Warrior". A little reasoning and some details is all I ever asked for.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Jan 3, 2011 9:30:45 GMT -8
Regardless of whether there's a conspiracy or not against the Warrior (and I think there certainly is), the biggest problem with the cat comes down to a simple branding/marketing issue.
I've run a few multi-million-dollar corporate marketing/advertising/pr programs during my career. And the last thing you ever want to see is your brand getting diluted or your customers getting confused. Sadly, I think SDSU is doing just that with the stupid cat. It has nothing to do with the core image/brand -- that of an Aztec warrior. Any attempts to make a case for the jaguar having a peripheral relationship to the Aztecs is simply trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. If you have to flowchart the relationship, it's simply too confusing for the consumer. Sorta like having to explain a joke. By the time you do that, it ain't funny. And if it causes you some confusion in the marketplace with some other rival brands -- BYU, Wazzu, Penn St., etc., etc. -- that's a Marketing 101 crime. There might be a few kids who like the fuzzy cat. OK, I get it. But the long-term damage to the Aztec brand is a much bigger issue than allegedly giving kids something fuzzy to look at.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Aztec on Jan 3, 2011 9:39:48 GMT -8
To some extent it is our own fault. The committee of 10 started out strong, even getting the Alumni Association agree to fund TWO people to serve as the Aztec Warrior so that we could cover more events. The idea was to have the "new" hire learn the ropes for a year while the "old" hire was still in school. That way there would be a continuation. It is not easy to be the mascot. People will ALWAYS unfairly compare the current Warrior to Carlos Gutierrez. No one will ever be able to replace him. It takes a special personality to fill the mascot role. We were also particularly interested in having the mascot go to the several local street fairs and festivals. Chet Carney has always advocated this, and we attempted to put it into action. Unfortunately, the committee was left to fund the entire project alone. No financial support from SDSU. Over time the makeup of the Warrior committee changed. After three years of hitting his head up against the brick wall that is the SDSU administration, the committee chairman, Bruce Johnson, resigned from the committee. Steve Anderson also left for personal reasons. I do not blame them in the least. It was a thankless job. No one replaced these two and the committee dwindled in size. It also was unable to put into place any of the suggestions and did not have the funding to maintain two people in the mascot role. This past year the committee was advised of the new traditions developed by Brian Sipe. This was done as a courtesy since those ideas included the use of the Aztec Warrior and his shield and spear. We rightly had no authority to veto anything. The decision had already been made by Steve Schnall of the athletic department to include a new, supplemental mascot. Schnall has been trying for 8 years to push this through and he finally found his opening. By calling Zuma a "supplemental character" and not a mascot he was able to circumvent the Alumni Association Warrior committee. This is how he presents it to the news media -- I could not find a link to the interview he gave one local news station after Zuma was introduced but that is what he said. We were told that Zuma would be a kid-friendly, cuddly character who would not go onto the field. Instead, what we got was a full-blown second mascot with his own "Growl" and introduction. Zuma gets more airtime on the stadium scoreboard than the Aztec Warrior. He often comes out with the basketball team and prances around center court before the games. Face it, he is now SDSU's SECOND mascot and the only one who is funded by the University. As a result of this Zuma character, I too finally resigned from the committee in September after the first football game. I had been lied to too many times. If the name Monty is disrespectful, then the name Zuma is also. If there isn't enough money to fund the Aztec Warrior's expenses, then there isn't enough money to fund Zuma either. When negotiating with SDSU for the return of the warrior, we were told that the University would not allow the long spear to be used, especially not to be planted into the football field in front of the visiting team bench because THIS was not historically accurate. But suddenly the long spear returns. And suddenly the arguments made against us are no longer valid?! As I said, I have been lied to by the University too many times. And so few people really care anyway. After all, most of you say, "Hey what's the big deal? It is just a mascot. It isn't hurting anything." All I can say is, this next time (which some of us believe is happening as we speak) there will not be an Aztec Warrior Foundation to come to save the mascot. Welcome to SDSU, Mr. byWho kitty cat! It's good of you to come forward and frame the argument with substantive inside info and a detailed run down of past events and players. You have provided plenty of very good information to consider. Speaking for myself, I needed more than what Steve had to offer in order to take this issue more seriously. I'm not one to believe something just because some guy said I should. I like to hear some facts and some details...a good argument, and you have provided that. Thank you. I'm still not convinced that SDSU is phasing out the Warrior; there's too much evidence to suggest the opposite. Much of the inside workings of the Monty debate you highlight for us is going on 10 years old. I'm not sure the political climate at SDSU surrounding the mascot is the same as it was 10 years ago. It seems there are old wounds and lingering hard feelings between the AWF and Schnall. I now can understand why thanks to you, but I'm not sure it means Schnall is hell bent on getting rid of the Warrior. It's good that some here are extra vigilant, and I'll be ready to join them if the school does move to get rid of the Warrior. I still don't appreciate those who claim it's a FACT that the Warrior is being phased out, but I do appreciate you coming forward with more information other than just "kill Zuma, he's phasing out the Warrior". A little reasoning and some details is all I ever asked for. You are a joke.
|
|
|
Post by campanile on Jan 3, 2011 9:40:23 GMT -8
Face it, he is now SDSU's SECOND mascot and the only one who is funded by the University. As long as the Warrior remains does it really matter if there are two mascots? Regarding the funding, is it possible that SDSU's non funding of the Warrior removes them from any legal action to remove the Warrior? Just asking. If the name Monty is disrespectful, then the name Zuma is also. Not necessarily. As you know, the Native American groups had specific complaints regarding Monty. It wasn't just the name and it wasn't just the human character, it was both together. They didn't like the use nickname "Monty" applied to a human depiction of a specific Aztec leader. They thought it lacked dignity, and reduced historical leader to a silly caricature. How do fix that? Make the human Warrior mascot generic, and lose the nickname linked to an Aztec leader. The reason why it's alright to call the Cat "Zuma" is 1. He's not a human depiction of an Aztec, he's a cat. 2. The nickname is not applied to a character depicting the leader of a race of people. Again, he's a cat. If there isn't enough money to fund the Aztec Warrior's expenses, then there isn't enough money to fund Zuma either. When negotiating with SDSU for the return of the warrior, we were told that the University would not allow the long spear to be used, especially not to be planted into the football field in front of the visiting team bench because THIS was not historically accurate. If I'm not mistaken, the Warrior enters the field with the spear, hands it to a person not dressed as or representing an Aztec Indian. In this way the spear is re incorporated into SDSU tradition, but in a way that separates the Warrior from doing the actual spear planting.
|
|
|
Post by ellbee on Jan 3, 2011 9:49:39 GMT -8
Two personal observations from a recent basketball game:
1) Two of my kids (aged 4 and 8) ran into Zuma during the game. They both high-fived Zuma (hey, kids and stuffed characters - what are ya gonna do?) - but my 8 year old said to me right after that, "I don't like Zuma, he scares me..."
2) I have recently noticed several current Aztec athletes wearing the Disgruntled Monty logo - including some at the recent game. It seems like the Disgruntled Monty logo is still the de facto Aztec logo, based on public attire.
Zuma is a bad idea, period. The only people who notice him with any interest are under age 5 - and it seems that the large majority of people who financially support the university don't like him or the idea of him.
Thanks for the information, Rulon (as well as your time and dedication).
|
|
|
Post by Morpheus on Jan 3, 2011 9:54:36 GMT -8
Regardless of whether there's a conspiracy or not against the Warrior (and I think there certainly is), the biggest problem with the cat comes down to a simple branding/marketing issue. I've run a few multi-million-dollar corporate marketing/advertising/pr programs during my career. And the last thing you ever want to see is your brand getting diluted or your customers getting confused. Sadly, I think SDSU is doing just that with the stupid cat. It has nothing to do with the core image/brand -- that of an Aztec warrior. Any attempts to make a case for the jaguar having a peripheral relationship to the Aztecs is simply trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. If you have to flowchart the relationship, it's simply too confusing for the consumer. Sorta like having to explain a joke. By the time you do that, it ain't funny. And if it causes you some confusion in the marketplace with some other rival brands -- BYU, Wazzu, Penn St., etc., etc. -- that's a Marketing 101 crime. There might be a few kids who like the fuzzy cat. OK, I get it. But the long-term damage to the Aztec brand is a much bigger issue than allegedly giving kids something fuzzy to look at. Well put.
|
|
|
Post by campanile on Jan 3, 2011 9:56:29 GMT -8
Another not so well-thought-out opinion from Steve presented as fact, but lacking in any details to support it. Thank you Steve for yet another meaningless contribution to the conversation. I'll be sure to let the moderator know that you're engaging in childish name calling again.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Aztec on Jan 3, 2011 10:01:06 GMT -8
Another not so well-thought-out opinion from Steve presented as fact, but lacking in any details to support it. Thank you Steve for yet another meaningless contribution to the conversation. I'll be sure to let the moderator know that you're engaging in childish name calling again. Mr. Educated defeated again. Merry Christmas .
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jan 3, 2011 10:13:31 GMT -8
Bad Kitty
|
|