Do you people (specifically Wes and the Joe Paterno admirer) not have friends from all political persuasions. Do you not get out in the world. Not everything is political. Why do I think you could turn someone's choice of dinner vegetable into a political issue.

about the BCS "system" is that it gives the illusion of legitimacy to a system that is not designed to crown a true champion. The "old" system, meaning the one in place in ones formative years (for me the 70s and 80's), was corny, but it was what it appeared to be. The polls crowned "mythical" champions and the bowl games were fun and full of tradition and that was all there was to it. Now, somehow people treat the BCS title game as if it really is for a legitimate championship, not the old Mythical one. Except of course when USC got shut out and claimed it anyway, and many people said "right on."

What makes a true champion, as opposed to a mythical one, is to win through a PROCESS that is widely recognized as being fair. At the end of the day, after a fair competition there should be no wiggle room to argue about who is actually the champion. College football and boxing stand alone. The St. Louis Cardinals were not the best team this year, but they are the champions, this cannot be rationally argued to the contrary. the team that wins the super bowl or the NCAA basketball tourney or the 1AA footabll playoffs is the champion as recognized by all who care. that cannot be said for the BCS champ. In all those other sports, teams control their own destiny on the field. If an NFL team wins all its games it will win the championship, if a college basketball team wins its conference and six tourney games, it wins, that's it, destiny is in one's own hands, not a pollsters or a computers.

I both agree and disagree that a team that fails to win its conference can win the championship. In this system, because there are so few games between the conferences, there is simply no way to know which teams are the best. How does anyone know Ohio St is the best. Maybe the big ten was just horrendous this year. The only way we know how good any team is compared to the other teams is when they play each other, or at least common opponents, which is also rare. If you had a Michigan-Ohio st rematch we would never know whether Florida is in Ohio State's league. Now we'll know, for better or for worse. If we had a legitimate multi-team tournye chosen through a fair process I would have no problem with a non-champ winning the national champ, as long as they earned it on the field, rahter than by virtue of somebody's opinion

doesn't division 1AA, division II and Division III college football employ a playoff system that everyone involved recognizes as fair and exciting and which at the end allows one team to stand up and proclaim that they won the title fair and square? Am I missing something here? Why wouldn't this be a good system for the big boys?

The Boise game was one of the greatest finishes I've ever seen. the Boise coach has to get a lot of credit for his great play calling. I totally agree with the sentiment expressed in this column. Bowl games are an exhibiition and are worth watching only for a cheap thrill, the one night stand of sports. They have no long term significance.

Just one question, I've always thought the name of the play is "hook and lateral" and that "hook and ladder" was just what some announcers mistakenly used.

Seeding doesn't matter in the NHL playoffs. The fact that the top seeds win more oftne than not and go farther in the playoffs is simply indicative of the fact that they are the better teams. for example, this year Buffalo is the best team in the East and will likely be the number one seed and the team most likely to play for the cup, because they are the best, not because they are the number one seed. Consider hypothetically if Buffalo kind of "coasted" for the rest of the season and finished third, the fact that they are third instead of first will not hurt their chances in the playoffs so long as the reason they dropped to third has nothing to do with their ability to prevail in the playoffs. A better example might be where a team's star player is hurt during the season but comes back for the playoffs, costing them in the standings but not hurting their chances in the playoffs.

On the whole "big one" issue. even though the issue is always framed as "can Payton manning win the big one" I think with many people this is just a way of saying that "Payton Manning will never be remembered in history as an all-time great quarterback unless he wins a championship." Sure, if the issue is framed as one of heart, guts, and determination it's pretty nonsensical, but if you think of it the other way it makes more sense. For example, as I remember, many, if not most people at the time thought that Marino was the best QB in the league as of his second year and for several years after that. Similarly, many people in the late '70s thought Fouts was the best. But now it just doesn't feel right to say Marino was better than Montana or Fouts better than Stabler or Staubach, because he didn't win the "big one." I think this is what the debate really boils down to.

Wes and James, can the two of you please GET A ROOM!