As a non-Cal fan, I like your re-branding. I don't love it, but it definitely gets a better-than-neutral reaction from me. The uniforms are slightly bland, but they are also very sharp; some of their aspects are really neat, so overall I give them a positive grade.

The bear logo... isn't there always controversy whenever a new logo comes out? Half of fans always hate the new logo, and then over a period of 2-3 years, public opinion shifts, until a few years after that, no one even thinks of the old logo, and would be upset if the new one changed. This is no different than every time Facebook gets a facelift... so many people claim they are leaving Facebook, until the next update comes out, they are up in arms because the look that they previously hated is about to go away.

I think the bear logo is pretty cool, but also that it is too complicated. I don't like it on the pants because it is a bit of a visual mess-- but I DO like it as a secondary logo, occupying a small role. I would like it as a small patch sewn on a sweatshirt underneath University of California, and above Berkeley. I would like it really in a lot of places... just not where it is too busy.

Above all, I still think the "Cal" letter logo is one of the best in sports. Some might (and justifiably) call it boring or too simple, but I think its simplicity is what makes it great. I love that it stayed on your helmet, and I hope it remains your primary logo, while the bear utilizes a secondary role.

At the end of the day, only one thing is important: your logo is way cooler than stanford's, your mascot is not a tree or a boring color, and your uniforms are not boring.

BeaversEatFurdTrees;842113117 said:

---

I think the bear logo is pretty cool, but also that it is too complicated. I don't like it on the pants because it is a bit of a visual mess-- but I DO like it as a secondary logo, occupying a small role. I would like it as a small patch sewn on a sweatshirt underneath University of California, and above Berkeley. I would like it really in a lot of places... just not where it is too busy.

Above all, I still think the "Cal" letter logo is one of the best in sports. Some might (and justifiably) call it boring or too simple, but I think its simplicity is what makes it great. I love that it stayed on your helmet, and I hope it remains your primary logo, while the bear utilizes a secondary role.

---

This is the key thing here. I see why people don't like the new bear logo (personally I think it's okay), but they did the right thing with a new logo like this which was to mostly keep it on the edges of the uniform and not try to make it the new primary. Keeping the script Cal on the helmets was the right move.

Keeping the script Cal on the helmet was the only thing they did right. The rest is ugly.

Ugly is too strong of a word, given the unfortunate existence of all of Oregon's uniforms since 2000, and their Boise State-esque basketball court. At least your uniforms are sharp and not an eyesore!

thanks for dropping by and giving us your opinion. Nice to get an unbiased view.

By the way, you've got a great coach.

BeaversEatFurdTrees;842113117 said:

---

As a non-Cal fan, I like your re-branding. I don't love it, but it definitely gets a better-than-neutral reaction from me. The uniforms are slightly bland, but they are also very sharp; some of their aspects are really neat, so overall I give them a positive grade.

The bear logo... isn't there always controversy whenever a new logo comes out? Half of fans always hate the new logo, and then over a period of 2-3 years, public opinion shifts, until a few years after that, no one even thinks of the old logo, and would be upset if the new one changed. This is no different than every time Facebook gets a facelift... so many people claim they are leaving Facebook, until the next update comes out, they are up in arms because the look that they previously hated is about to go away.

I think the bear logo is pretty cool, but also that it is too complicated. I don't like it on the pants because it is a bit of a visual mess-- but I DO like it as a secondary logo, occupying a small role. I would like it as a small patch sewn on a sweatshirt underneath University of California, and above Berkeley. I would like it really in a lot of places... just not where it is too busy.

Above all, I still think the "Cal" letter logo is one of the best in sports. Some might (and justifiably) call it boring or too simple, but I think its simplicity is what makes it great. I love that it stayed on your helmet, and I hope it remains your primary logo, while the bear utilizes a secondary role.

At the end of the day, only one thing is important: your logo is way cooler than stanford's, your mascot is not a tree or a boring color, and your uniforms are not boring.

---

As is the case with every fan board, we have our fair share of "fans" who seem to dislike everything Cal does, and does it with such vitriol that it's hard to believe they're actually fans. It's good to get an outsider's perspective to offset the disdain for our program.

BeaversEatFurdTrees;842113117 said:

---

At the end of the day, only one thing is important: your logo is way cooler than stanford's, your mascot is not a tree or a boring color, and your uniforms are not boring.

---

Your intelligence in this matter is a credit to Beaver alumni everywhere.

Whatever our other differences, I hope that the entire Pac-12 can agree on one simple thing: Cal is a better university than stanfurd.

Riley is great at player development (making lemonade out of 2 and 3 star lemons) but he was a prick to run up the score last year on Tedford. Oregon State players have a history of dirty hits on our best players--the roll into Kevin Riley's knees was gutter snake dirty and career ending. The undercutting of J. Best when he was already airborne and over the goal line may have been accidental but I think there was an intent to cause harm. There have been other dirty hits by OSU players during the Riley regime. A snake rots from the head. Payback will be sweet.

personally, glad the score was run up, sealed tedford's deal.

can you imagine if we still had teddy as coach?

cubzwin;842113364 said:

---

Riley is great at player development (making lemonade out of 2 and 3 star lemons) but he was a prick to run up the score last year on Tedford. Oregon State players have a history of dirty hits on our best players--the roll into Kevin Riley's knees was gutter snake dirty and career ending. The undercutting of J. Best when he was already airborne and over the goal line may have been accidental but I think there was an intent to cause harm. There have been other dirty hits by OSU players during the Riley regime. A snake rots from the head. Payback will be sweet.

---

Some good points you make, and I'd love nothing more than to send Opie packing in similar fashion someday.

You're glad your school had it rubbed in, Davidson? Tedford would be gone even if we had "only" lost by 20.

Davidson: well if Sandy needed the lopsided loss to help make up her mind then she is stupid--and Sandy isn't stupid. But I agree totally with your sentiment that JT absolutely had to go.

BeaversEatFurdTrees;842113117 said:

---

...The bear logo... isn't there always controversy whenever a new logo comes out? Half of fans always hate the new logo, and then over a period of 2-3 years, public opinion shifts, until a few years after that, no one even thinks of the old logo, and would be upset if the new one changed....

---

Honestly, I think Nike did a better job with your new streamlined futuristic-looking Beaver Logo than they did with Cal's Abominable SnowBear thingy.

That said, yes, I agree with you -- 2 or 3 years from now everybody will be used to it. That's life.

Davidson;842113369 said:

---

personally, glad the score was run up, sealed tedford's deal.

can you imagine if we still had teddy as coach?

---

I don't care about the whole "rubbing it in" or "not rubbing it in" thing--it is football. Play football. Don't worry about hurting the other team's feelings. I don't care if teams run the score up on us and plenty did. Tedford absolutely needed to play to blow people out sometimes, Southern Miss in 2004 the MAJOR example.

Our Domicile;842113420 said:

---

Honestly, I think Nike did a better job with your new streamlined futuristic-looking Beaver Logo than they did with Cal's Abominable SnowBear thingy.

That said, yes, I agree with you -- 2 or 3 years from now everybody will be used to it. That's life.

---

Yeah, I'd agree they did a better job with it (though I may be in the shrinking minority). Most OSU fans did not like it at the first look, but I'd wager it gets more positive than negative opinions now after a few weeks to soak it in.


As for going way OT on running up the score... personally I think it is stupid to advocate against it. Although it pained me to see Oregon put 65 up on us a few years ago, it is archaic kind of stupid to not put value on impressing the polls with a full game.

It is also debateable if a pass from a 3rd-stringer to a 2nd/3rd stringer behind a 2nd and 3rd string O-Line is "running it up." Not to mention that part of the unwritten rule about running up is that the first string defense HAS to be pulled before you can go that route. In either case, everyone is on either end of it at some point... only question is how gracious you are in victory versus how bitter and ungracious you are in defeat. Five months later. To someone who actually likes your program and cheers for them.

It was running up the score and Oregon State gained nothing in the polls from it. When Oregon is fighting to impress pollsters and be the top ranked undefeated team in the country I understand it. Besides, the Chipster is a universally acknowledged azzh**e whereas Riley is of the stealth variety. Plus, Cal fans are tired of all the cheap hits on our skill players. Maybe Avery Sebastion needs to meet your skill players and lay down the law. Years ago the Beavers used to be our jailhouse wife and they will be once again. Payback, karma, relax and enjoy.

BeaversEatFurdTrees;842113442 said:

---

It is also debateable if a pass from a 3rd-stringer to a 2nd/3rd stringer behind a 2nd and 3rd string O-Line is "running it up." Not to mention that part of the unwritten rule about running up is that the first string defense HAS to be pulled before you can go that route. In either case, everyone is on either end of it at some point... only question is how gracious you are in victory versus how bitter and ungracious you are in defeat. Five months later. To someone who actually likes your program and cheers for them.

---

My opinion is that anything you do with the backups in the game is not running it up. If you are using that time to get them in-game experience then you run your normal offense.

BeaversEatFurdTrees;842113117 said:

---

As a non-Cal fan, I like your re-branding. I don't love it, but it definitely gets a better-than-neutral reaction from me. The uniforms are slightly bland, but they are also very sharp; some of their aspects are really neat, so overall I give them a positive grade.

The bear logo... isn't there always controversy whenever a new logo comes out? Half of fans always hate the new logo, and then over a period of 2-3 years, public opinion shifts, until a few years after that, no one even thinks of the old logo, and would be upset if the new one changed. This is no different than every time Facebook gets a facelift... so many people claim they are leaving Facebook, until the next update comes out, they are up in arms because the look that they previously hated is about to go away.

I think the bear logo is pretty cool, but also that it is too complicated. I don't like it on the pants because it is a bit of a visual mess-- but I DO like it as a secondary logo, occupying a small role. I would like it as a small patch sewn on a sweatshirt underneath University of California, and above Berkeley. I would like it really in a lot of places... just not where it is too busy.

Above all, I still think the "Cal" letter logo is one of the best in sports. Some might (and justifiably) call it boring or too simple, but I think its simplicity is what makes it great. I love that it stayed on your helmet, and I hope it remains your primary logo, while the bear utilizes a secondary role.

At the end of the day, only one thing is important: your logo is way cooler than stanford's, your mascot is not a tree or a boring color, and your uniforms are not boring.

---

While we are at it, I am confused by OSU's new logo: