<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/586288</link>
		<description>Comments by MatthewMassey</description>
<item>
<title>Buckeye Commentary : Barnett likely out for season</title>
<link>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/09/barnett-likely-out-for-season/#IDComment98907483</link>
<description>I think OJ should get a fair shot at the position, but I presume he would have been playing the Star ahead of Moeller if he was the better player.  What I don&amp;#039;t know is if Johnson&amp;#039;s physical abilities are better suited to the traditional strong safety position, i.e., he is faster and more capable of coverage downfield on slot receivers.  Nevertheless, Moeller is clearly one of the 5 best defensive players.  If he does not replace Barnett, he should replace Sweat.   </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/09/barnett-likely-out-for-season/#IDComment98907483</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buckeye Commentary : (Potential) Expansion Odds and Ends</title>
<link>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/06/potential-expansion-odds-and-ends/#IDComment80132905</link>
<description>Salvaging rivalries will be a tricky process; one that should be the subject of an entire post here on BC.  I need to think it through some more.  The above alignment was totally off the cuff and geared toward competitive balance.   </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/06/potential-expansion-odds-and-ends/#IDComment80132905</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buckeye Commentary : Conversation with Big Red Network</title>
<link>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/06/conversation-with-big-red-network/#IDComment80132700</link>
<description>The idea of yearly battles between Nebraska and Ohio State, (a relevant) Michigan, and even Penn State are very exciting.  I know divisional alignment will have something to say about this but you do not add a major program like Nebraska to hide them from the other teams.  Hell, if the Conference wants to get its money&amp;#039;s worth, they will need to add all of those match-ups.    </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/06/conversation-with-big-red-network/#IDComment80132700</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buckeye Commentary : Midweek Mierda: Welcome Nebraska...only?</title>
<link>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/06/midweek-mierda-welcome-nebraskaonly/#IDComment79391241</link>
<description>I see your point, but despite the low ratings recently, NBC may see it as a long-term with faith in Brian Kelly.   Of course, they may be on their way to the Big Ten as you suggest.     &lt;a href=&quot;http://bleacherreport.com/articles/403805-breaking-news-notre-dame-and-four-others-to-join-big-ten-conference&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://bleacherreport.com/articles/403805-breakin...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 02:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/06/midweek-mierda-welcome-nebraskaonly/#IDComment79391241</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buckeye Commentary : Big Ten should innovate with expansion</title>
<link>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/03/big-ten-should-innovate-with-expansion/#IDComment61361189</link>
<description>@MikeLew: I am not sure that three &amp;quot;mega weekends&amp;quot; would not allow the Big Ten to negotiate better all around TV deals as well as bowl tie-ins, which ultimately would make up for the lack of a title game. I totally agree it is all about money, but I think the league can innovate and make more money at the same time.   </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/03/big-ten-should-innovate-with-expansion/#IDComment61361189</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buckeye Commentary : One new rule may look good</title>
<link>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/09/one-new-rule-may-look-good/#IDComment33074259</link>
<description>I just think it would look really cool.  I do not think they should do it every season but it could be a nice touch once and a while.   </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Sep 2009 00:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/09/one-new-rule-may-look-good/#IDComment33074259</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buckeye Commentary : Navy depth chart released</title>
<link>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/08/navy-depth-chart-released/#IDComment32690435</link>
<description>You did not hear his name much in fall camp but I have to believe he will be a serious contributor down the line.  Like you said, he has looked awesome in the past.    </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/08/navy-depth-chart-released/#IDComment32690435</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Buckeye Commentary : The Choice Is Yours</title>
<link>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/06/the-choice-is-your/#IDComment25427040</link>
<description>I hear you and I bet the UM gloating would be insufferable.    My argument is based more on the long-term effects of a rejuvenated Michigan program and overall rivalry.  I was deciding between the two games and I will always choose the betterment of the long-term.  Over the long haul, a healthy OSU-Michigan rivalry is great for the Buckeyes, and college football.   </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.buckeyecommentary.com/06/the-choice-is-your/#IDComment25427040</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>