Oregon State Unveils New Look with Fantastic Scheme and Unfortunate Beaver
Oregon State finally unveiled the massive change to their look, and it's one of those good-news, bad-news things.
Lost Letterman broke down the new logo and uniforms that will now adorn the college and basketball squads. And we pretty much agree with them in that there is a lot to like, except for one glaring blemish.
Let me begin by saying I absolutely love the new look. The colors and style they went with are superb, but the logo is where my praises end.
Here's what the logo used to look like:
And now we get this thing that people are apparently calling a "Beavershark":
I can certainly see how this particular and rather unfortunate cartoon mockup of an animal might be a mix between a beaver and a shark—perhaps a science experiment that went horribly wrong.
What I saw immediately was a rat, and now I can't shake the thought.
I will largely forgive this because it must be a dreadful task to sit down and try to make a beaver look menacing.
Let's get to the good news, which is the rest of the uniforms. Here is what you can expect, via the Oregon State Facebook page:
From the stripes down the helmets to the mask which features what Yahoo! Sports refers to as a Bane-style facemask, these uniforms are sharp.
Take a gander at more photos from Lost Letterman that should have Beavers fans ecstatic about the new era:
Even the basketball uniforms look far more sleek and streamlined. If what Mike Riley tweeted earlier is true, these uniforms will definitely have some recruits considering Oregon State for their sartorial swag:
This rebranding is about 3 things. 1. Recruiting 2. Recruiting 3. Recruiting.Talking to you Class of 2014! #GoBeavs— Mike Riley (@Coach_Riley) March 5, 2013
Say goodbye to the old muted uniforms and usher in the era of some duds that absolutely pop. Let's hope that poor beaver is short-lived, though.
Hit me up on Twitter for more swagtastic endeavors.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?