Monty Montezuma - SDSU mascot.

Submitted by Section 1 on September 22nd, 2011 at 11:15 AM

This is in the category of "get to know your opponent."  Or, perhaps, Installment Number 3.4 in "Why Michigan should never, ever consider a 'mascot'."

Behold, Monty Montezuma, who I presume will be making his first-ever visit to Michigan Stadium, to thrill and entertain the all-important 4- to 8-year old demographic.  Because of, like, all the revenue and everything:


Cut biceps; check.  Headgear just made for Lee Corso; check.  'Skorts' that Lee Corso must never wear; check.  Conch shell horn; awesome.  Threatening weaponry including optional spear and/or broadsword; confiscated by Stadium security services.

I've actually seen Monty Montezuma, when SDSU visited Camp Randall to play Wisconsin a few years ago, and given that the game was 0-0 at the half, Monty Montezuma was nothing less than the star of the show.  I left with the game 7-0 in the third quarter.  

Your little members of the all-important 4- to 8-year old demographic will be loving Monty Montezuma this Saturday. 





September 22nd, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^

I guess its okay for schools to use native Mexican mascots (e.g. Aztecs) and not native American mascots (e.g. Hurons)? 

Also, here is a photo of an eagle Aztec warrior.  Where are Monty's wings and tightie-whities?

[ED:  Look at the cerebral discussion I inspired!  Woo, me!]



September 22nd, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^

I seem to remember the school getting rid of Monty a few years back (caving to pressure from a Mexican Students Against Sideline Shenanigans type group).  If I recall correctly a group of fans decided to just pay the guy to keep dressing up and bought him a ticket to every game.

Not sure if that policy has changed, but this guy appears to be dressed differently and seems to have field access, so maybe they were allowed to bring him back so long as they tweaked the image somewhat.

Which isn't to say the NCAA isn't ridiculous about things like the North Dakota mascot situation.

Section 1

September 22nd, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

I played golf the other day with a guy from Chicago who had an old Miami (Not that Miami) Redskins headcover.  He had headcovers from the schools of each of his kids, and the oldest one had graduated form Miami pre-Redhawks.

So we got takling about the schools who had abandoned their Native American names and mascots, and the more we talked, the more we figured that there may be more schools that successfully resisted changes, than those who did change.  Anyway, there are noteworthy examples on both sides of the divide:


Stanford Indians/Cardinal; Miami Redskins/Redhawks; Eastern Michigan Hurons/Eagles; several more whose names escape me.


Almost too many to name!  San Diego State Aztecs, Florida State Seminoles, Illinois Illini (minus Chief Illiniwek), North Dakota Fighting Sioux, Utah Runnin' Utes, Central Michigan Chippewas, and many, many more.

Is the "get rid of Native-American team names movement" over?  How did the "Chippewas" survive but the "Hurons" did not? 


September 22nd, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

Tribal council approval. The NCAA is ok with Indian nicknames/mascots as long as schools get approval from the relevant nearby tribal councils.Central Michigan and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council have a proclamation approving the name, along with some joint educational and scholarship efforts. Same thing for the Seminole Nation.

Section 1

September 22nd, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

But I think that Eastern jumped before FSU and CMU asked for and got their tribal approvals.  I really wonder whether Eastern would make the same move, if it were being considered today. 

I do recall there being the usual protests, on both sides, at the time of the Eastern change, but I don't really recall there being a big push from the Huron band/nation.

Nowadays, I think that what they really want to do is to co-brand football weekends with casino gaming opportunities.


September 22nd, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^

Both of those suppositions (about Eastern and tribal gaming) might well be true. I know the tribal council that has approved UND's use of "Fighting Sioux" has asked for the liscensing rights to the mascot in return for their support. (The other Sioux council nearby hasn't, in part because the two councils don't frequently get along.)


All this is fine by me. They're leveraging the imagined connection of sports fans to their tribes for the greater good of the communities they represent. The key point for me is that the tribes themselves possess some degree of control about how their names are used.


September 22nd, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^

Should add that the tricky thing with Eastern is that most Huron (Wyandot) peoples were forced to Oklahoma and Kansas in the 1820s and 1830s, so there's not the same kind of relevant local political entity to deal with. I'm not sure how the NCAA deals with tribes that were exiled.


September 22nd, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^

Chippewas survived as the university and Tribe have an agreement in place where they said they dont really care if the use their name as long as its used in a non offensive way blah blah PC crap aka they will kick you out of the game if you even attempt to wear anything native related. 

I would assume they showed that piece of paper to the NCAA hence being able to keep their name.


September 23rd, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^

UND is changing their name. The NCAA required they get approval from the 2 Sioux tribal groups closest to the university (there are 6 or 7 sioux nations/reservations, each with their own tribal council). They got approval from the Spirit Lake Tribal Council but not Standing Rock.

Away Goal

September 22nd, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

SDSU did cave to student pressure but concerned alumni stepped up and bought Monty a ticket to the games so his momentum changing presence could be felt.  Even though at the cavernous Qualcomm about 45% of the fans are never in their seat and just wander around, it was brought to security's attention that Monty was always out of his paid-for seat, moving to and fro, entertaining the masses.  Obviously this had to stop so Monty was told to stay in his seat.  Again, concerned alumni stepped up and bought Monty multiple tickets in different areas of the stadium, giving him the right to wander.

That was old Monty.  They've since tamed his costume and muscles and now he is allowed on the sidelines.  New Monty is much shorter and is not smeared in olive oil.

They changed the Aztec logo about the same time.

Section 1

September 22nd, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^

You are right; the old Aztec was truly freakish.  Like a South American "Hulk."  They slathered him in what looked like a combination of bodybuilding oil and suntan-in-a-bottle.  That's what I remember from the game at Camp Randall.  And the headdress was a lot wilder; much more in the way of spikes and feathers and other freaky stuff.  Have there been changes post-2006? 


September 22nd, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^

I agree with you and I tend to err on the side of being sensitive of others, if possible.  However, I never got the big deal about mascots (as long as they are done tastefully). 

Consider Florida State:  The Seminole tribe was (and is) a big part of Florida history.  However, most people would not know anything about Seminoles were it not for the fact that FSU features them so prominently.  In other words, FSU has propped up the tribal name and continued it into the present day, thereby benefitting the tribe.

On the other hand, in SDSU's case, the Aztecs were part of an amazing civilization.  They dominated Central America for centuries and everyone learns about them in middle-school history classes.  And now their good name is being used by SDSU?  Not that anyone really cares, but SDSU is arguably bringing down the tribe.  If there was ever a case for de-naming a school, this has got to be one of them . . .  (Of course, as mentioned above, there is no existing Aztec tribe to object, making this a mere academic discussion)




September 22nd, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^

In my effort to make a joke I stumbled upon something truly scary.  I wanted to make a joke about  SDSU playing a team with a Conquistador mascot, which there actually is, and having the mascots fight on the sideline.  That would be really offensive. 

In the process, I came across this site that sells mascot costumes.  Some of them are pretty horrible.  Hopefully DB does not ever venture there.  Something about this picture was too funny.  If we do get a mascot, please no, make sure they come dressed to the stadium so no little kids witness this