The BCS system, as I recall, was implemented primarily to rectify the "injustice" of writers' and coaches' poll votes determining the "National Champion." But since the poll votes still play a huge role in doing just that (both in establishing the relative strength of your opponent and in setting your own BCS ranking), nothing has really been solved. The only difference is more money for the broadcasters and BCS conferences, and a reduction in the amount of quality games for fans to watch on New Year's Day.

I vote no on the BCS system, and no on a playoff. I will never change my vote on the BCS system, and I'll change my vote on the playoff issue the day after the NCAA stops denying college football is really just the NFL's free minor-league system and starts actually letting the players get paid and skip classes without fear of sanction.

If you want to maintain the charade that these kids are really student-athletes, amateurs fighting purely for the old alma mater, then a playoff system simply extends the hypocrisy.

The old system was as good as any, and let the fans engage in good old fashioned bar-stool bantering without needing a multi-function calculator and a hot-line to your lawyer and accountant to join in the debate.

As for this year: Michigan is probably the 2nd best team in the country, and by that distinction should be facing Ohio State, all other arguments to the contrary be damned. Except this one: they had their shot and couldn't get it done. Might as well give somebody else a chance. Is Florida any more likely to beat this year's Buckeye's? Not likely, but neither are any of the other teams clamoring for the shot. The end result this year will be the same as if we had no BCS system: Ohio State as consensus #1. But this year we have to wait 'til January 8 to make it official.

"Hey man, don't worry. God's got a plan. He's lookin' out for us. Just gotta keep doin' his work."

I don't know what's scarier, quite frankly:

a) That the man who control's the world's largest nuclear arsenal hears and acts on the voice in his head that he believes to be that of God;

b) That he is so sure that he's faithfully following that voice in his head that all the evidence in the universe won't convince him he's wrong;

c) That the country with the world's largest nuclear arsenal elected this boob (ignoring for ourselves some evidence to the contrary) twice.

d) All of the above.

I assume that when Mr. Bush refers to most Washington reports going unread he is speaking specifically about the August 2001 PDB that he merely glanced at. You know, the one that described how al-Qaeda wanted to crash airplanes in the US.

So apparently gross negligence in the handling of inappropriate sexual advances on a teenage page by a member of Congress does not violate any House rules. This appears to be the reason why no sanctions have been recommended.

How about a sanction for being a colossal idiot more concerned with the political ramifications of actually taking appropriate action than with protecting the pages? Do you really need a formal "rule" for that? I think not. And if so, why not propose a catch-all "USE YOUR GODDAM COMMON SENSE" Rule?

Any chance that would fly with either party in control?

This really sums up nicely the state in which we find ourselves today in this country. Athletes and celebrities are constantly being upbraided by politicians for failing to be good role models. While it certainly would be nice if ball players, rock stars and actors took some initiative in that area, it in no way is part of their "job description." Conversely, those pontificating elected leaders DO have an obligation to lead by example, and yet they fail miserably time after time after time.

I must respond to tulipreader.

This IS significant because it illustrates the total abdication of responsibility by the Congress to take ANY action that might negatively impact their party's control.

Just as they failed to exercise their Constitutional obligations to provide oversight of the Executive branch vis-a-vis the "war on terror" and all that entails, they likewise failed to exercise responsible oversight over their own members. Both failures were rooted in political expediency.

The unfortunate aspect of the fact that there is a "sex scandal" at the core is that the MSM and the American public can only wrap their minds around a "sex" story. Any real focus on the institution, from the ramming-through of the USA PATRIOT Act on, would have told the same story.

Not to be an echo chamber here, but the Bears's defense was short 3 pro-bowl quality players last night: Brown, Harris and Vasher. They'll stay without Brown & Harris for the rest of the season, however long that is, but Vasher should be back soon.

I think (and I hope I'm not wrong) that they have enough depth to still be pretty darn good even without Harris and Brown. The fill-ins won't be as good, but given the rest of the talent, they should manage. My biggest concern, this year and every year, is which Peanut Tillman is going to show up on any given play. The one that gets roasted (especially on the run) more often than his Planters namesakes, or the one with the closing-minutes pick?

The biggest boost the defense will get is a little rest, which might be more frequent now that the offense in general and the running game in particular is starting to gel a little more. Of course, that rest won't materialize if Hester keeps running back kicks all the way home. I'm guessing they'll take the points and strap it on.