December 28th, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^
This thread is full of not sure if serious posts.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
I'm more confused than when I didn't know if there was or was not a big announcement that may not be to big, or small or important.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
Yes...Yes it is.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^
in the PSU job, in case anyone hasn't seen that
December 28th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
I did see that today. What a tire fire the PSU situation is becoming.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
PSU should be a top ten-ish team every year, but the current situation is unprecedented in its awfulness. I can imagine a lot of coaches passing on the chance to coach there.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
Those silly Mayans....gotcha
December 28th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
At 4 so I won't find out what's happening until I land. I'm assuming it has something to do with our Pac 12 opponent though.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
You just posted how you would be on a plane twenty minutes ago in future tense...
December 28th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
On the layover in St. Louis....
December 28th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^
put the apostrophe in the correct place if they are going to parody. <Insert joke about Tennessee here>
December 28th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^
Gramatically speaking, it should read "Tiger Woods's" because the 's' in Woods is not indicating a plural.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
I think you can do "Woods'" or "Woods's" when you've got a proper noun.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:33 PM ^
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp
according to this site the second 's' is not required, but it is preferred.... now the question is who the hell is doing the preferring?
December 28th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^
I think that, after the Reformation, we can decide for ourselves whether we want to use the second "s."
December 28th, 2011 at 4:46 PM ^
If it's possessive (which it would be here) it should be Woods'
December 28th, 2011 at 4:40 PM ^
Gramatically speaking, it should read Woods'
December 28th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp
Check rule #3
Woods's is preffered. again, not sure who prefers it... but that's the way it is
December 28th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^
As a holder of the stellar UM English degree, I am going to side with those who prefer Woods' to Woods's. Not that it matters much. A lot of the old grammar points are becoming optional these days. Whatevs . . . .
December 28th, 2011 at 5:35 PM ^
Do you think every generation thinks the generation that follows is destroying written language? I teach high school and the things kids write make me want to pull my hair out.
December 28th, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^
While every generation seems to think that the next is making things worse, that can (and probably will be) true at some point. Our country really is slipping behind in a number of ways - not that this is the fault of today's 18 year olds.
December 28th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^
but the posessive of Woods is Woods', fwiw
edit: I'm late to the grammar party, it appears. My aplogies on bringing yesterday's news today. My 6 month old tends to distract me from time to time
December 28th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^
See above. I know it sounds odd when spoken, and it wouldn't be my choice, but it's not wrong.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^
Is that Daniel Tosh???
December 28th, 2011 at 4:48 PM ^
Its Lane Kiffin
December 28th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^
Sarcasm meters on the fritz.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
Add a PAc-10 team, sounds like ND is going to get squeezed out, they're coalitioning against the SEC, and hey, Arizona-Michigan just became a real possibility. And Brian says nothing happens over break...
December 28th, 2011 at 4:50 PM ^
Someone mentioned that Delaney said that they might stay at 8 games.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^
So...how's everyone's day going? Anything new?
December 28th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^
I would be excited by this, but who the hells knows what the conferences will even look like by 2017.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^
They said in the announcement that this is in an effort to prevent the need to go past 12 teams.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^
So .... its almost 5. There was no news?
December 28th, 2011 at 4:54 PM ^
The news came out at like 1. It's all over the board. Check out the thread about B1G-Pac12 scheduling agreement for more info.
December 28th, 2011 at 4:58 PM ^
schadjoe Joe Schad
December 28th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^
There's a big difference between those two words.
December 28th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^
...certainly can't hurt when it comes to the recruitment of West Coast players.
December 28th, 2011 at 5:32 PM ^
The news is that this Y2K thing could be serious, bro. Stock up on supplies.
December 28th, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^
This is a nice fucking thread.
December 28th, 2011 at 5:43 PM ^
Is the BTN trying to get into California (good for revenue)? Is the Pac10 Network going to merge with the BTN (would be awesome)? Recruiting would probably be worse, as now modwest guys can go to Cali and play in the midwest 1-2 times a year so their family can attend.
Scheduling 9 conference games + 2 Pac10 opponents would be more difficult than 8 conference games, 3 cupcakes and ND.
It certainly makes getting to a NC game more difficult. With Western, Central, & Eastern, why play games on the West Coast with a home & home? We make more money by playing at the Big House and keep more money in the state of Michigan.
I'm sure this is just the beginning of something big, but as of now, I don't understand.
December 28th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
December 28th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
Total bullshit!
December 28th, 2011 at 6:57 PM ^
looking forward to seeing some Pac-12 schools come to the Big House. We owe Oregon. To see RichRod back at the Big House would be awesome. I would really love to see how a Mattison Defense would fair against a RichRod Offense.
December 28th, 2011 at 7:19 PM ^
This thread...
December 28th, 2011 at 9:20 PM ^
Nothing of any substance was announced.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:39 AM ^
this is all just a preparation for our new super-duper 24 team conference.