Your theory about wild-card teams dominating the playoffs can be easily validated...just look at major league baseball, which has seen several teams win the World Series as wild cards in recent years (the Marlins twice), while perennial division winners like the Atlanta Braves (my home team) perfect the October flop. The reason is quite simple: by definition, wild-card teams are usually the hottest teams going into the playoffs. They have that elusive "momentum" quality, and are winning pressure-cooker games each week at season's end just to make the playoffs. In the meantime, the division champs are resting their starters and phoning it in, and it's not a surprise that they often choke against the hungrier wild-card teams. The solution? If I'm Tony Dungy (or Bobby Cox), I would start channelling Vince Lombardi after my team clinches the division. I'd ride my team unmercifully, threaten fines for letting up, and only rest starters if they're missing a limb or vital organ...anything to prevent my team from losing that elusive edge. Lombardi was famous for doing this with his two Super Bowl teams (read "Instant Replay" by Jerry Kramer for insight into how successful he was at this). The ball bounces funny for everyone, your players have to be in a perpetual state of wanting it more to win.

I normally love your column, but that's enough already about snowboarding, ice dancing, and other wastes of time. In case you haven't heard, it's not just a cliche this year...nobody, but nobody, is watching this crap. I've been looking forward to your commentary on the real sports news over the past week: the NBA slam-dunk debacle, college hoops upsets, Ricky Williams back on the bong, and the blessed beginning of spring training. Please, no more articles about Olympic "sports", even if they're tongue in cheek. Remember, a good rule of thumb is: if the sport in question includes crepe-paper uniforms and teddy bears, then it doesn't belong in a Sports Daily.

I really enjoyed reading this article and the nearly 90 responses to it. It still amazes me that with so much intelligent discussion of this problem (and I'm not being facetious here), the real problem is rarely if ever addressed: how do we effect a solution that will guarantee an airplane will never again be flown into a building? The answer, like all things, lies in the movies. I'll explain.

Why don't we have onerous security regulations governing train travel? Simple: you can hijack a train, but ultimately you can't do much of anything with it other than stop it on the tracks and maybe blow it up...tragic, yes, but limited to the train itself and the several hundred or so (if that many) people on the train. What I propose is simple: put the airplanes on "tracks" too! The technology is simple: at any time an airplane's course or behavior is deemed suspicious, the cockpit controls are overridden by the closest Air Traffic Control center (obviously with appropriate authorization) and the plane put into level flight until the situation can be resolved. This technology, first pioneered in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (remember Captain Kirk uses it to take over Khan's ship) would use existing public-key strong encryption that can't be hacked or cracked without the use of parallel-processing supercomputers. These systems would be standard equipment on all aircraft (much like the infamous "black boxes"). Existing planes could be retrofitted with this technology that would be systemically integrated with the aircraft's avionics systems, and could not be compromised without destroying the plane. Once the cockpit controls have been overridden, ATC can decide whether to continue the flight or even bring the plane in for a remote landing if warranted.

Once this system is in place, we can go back to the saner pre-9/11 era when only minimal security and screening was necessary and all we complained about was the food. Sure, there will be an occasional mid-air tragedy when someone smuggles an explosive device or firearm on board, but the threat of a national tragedy on on the order of 9/11 will be neutralized.

I'm a 20-year software professional and can assure you that the technology required for this is relatively cheap, reliable, and exists today. So why aren't we pursuing it? Could it be for the same reason we don't implement a flat income tax...bureaucracies like the TSA and IRS are self-perpetuating entities that, like Keith Richards, can't be killed?

Daimler invented the automobile. Several have laid claim to inventing the internal combustion engine. Henry Ford invented the mass production processes that made it all affordable. The point he was trying to make is that the modern concept of the automobile, including the processes involved in manufacturing, was invented here, and that the U.S. must and will have a healthy and viable auto industry to survive. This point resonated with millions of us far more than empty rhetoric about "evil folks out to get us."

Lest we start overanalyzing slips of the tongue, let us always remember: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." W, 2004