SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73498)5/30/2006 8:23:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Pitiful Cubs could use a maverick owner
__________________________________________________________

BY JAY MARIOTTI*
COLUMNIST
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
May 30, 2006
suntimes.com

Mark Cuban would be interested in owning the Cubs. I know this because he said so, by e-mail, responding quicker to my questions than it takes Andy MacPhail to remove his tinted sunglasses and Dusty Baker to make a pitching change. Tired of writing every week that baseball-inept Tribune Co. should sell the club and set Cubdom free, I chose to seek solutions this time and gauge the self-made billionaire's level of curiosity.

It's higher than I thought.

"If the Cubs come up for sale, it would most likely happen through an investment banker. If they produce a book, I certainly would take a look at it,'' wrote Cuban, who found time to answer even with his basketball team, the Dallas Mavericks, sitting two victories from the NBA Finals.

Why the Cubs? Wouldn't he have better things to do than fight with an old billy goat? Seems Cuban, like much of America, has a love affair with Wrigley Field.

"I've been there a bunch of times and had a blast every time. It's attractive because [the Cubs] are an institution in Chicago,'' wrote Cuban, who sang "Take Me Out to the Ball Game'' four summers ago and didn't botch it like Ozzy Osbourne and Mike Ditka.

Clearly, I am not the only one who has pondered the notion of this middle-aged frat guy -- and the most successful of the new breed of sports owners -- rescuing the Cubs from themselves. "Please ask Cubs fans to stop sending me e-mails asking me to buy the team,'' Cuban wrote. "Between Chicago, Pittsburgh and K.C., it's killing my inbox.'' He has interest in the Cubs and his hometown Pirates, another franchise aching for an ownership change. But, really now, the Kansas City Royals?

"Sorry, K.C.,'' Cuban wrote. "Great city, but not for me.''

I suggested to Cuban that the Cubs haven't won a World Series in 25 years of Tribune ownership because, well, the company is plagued by stuffy corporate executives who pump the Wrigley cash cow but don't know anything about winning championships.

Breath of fresh air

"Either an owner is committed to making the product better, or he/she isn't,'' he wrote. "The best food in town doesn't sell if the restaurant bathrooms are dirty.''

Yes, but the Cubs do SELL, I reminded Cuban. They draw 3 million fans a year -- and 40,000 more Monday, including Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston (nahhh, they aren't dating or anything) -- because of their built-in mass popularity. They don't have to win, I tell him, because they sell out the ballpark and are blessed with a large, loyal national fan base that probably needs to seek professional help. How would Cuban win a championship in addition to selling out the fabled shrine where, admittedly, he likes to "have a beer on Waveland Avenue'' and party in Wrigleyville?

"Baseball, like every other professional sport, doesn't have a template for winning a championship,'' he wrote back.

In other words, Cuban would put his own stamp on Cubdom. The stamp emphasizes winning above all else, with a mandate that ticket-buying consumers have plenty of fun in the process. I'm a fan of Mark Cuban, the franchise owner. He bought a dead operation six years ago and quickly maximized its fan base in Dallas, turning the Mavs into an elite team and an attractive destination for players. He would be a striking antithesis to a quartet of Jurassic Park owners -- Tribsters, McCaskeys, Bill Wirtz, Jerry Reinsdorf -- that have run the city's five major teams for much too long and are about as hip and 21st century as Engelbert Humperdinck. Cuban is 47 and likes rap music. He is married with a 2-year-old daughter, yet knows how to have a good time. Most important, he's worth $1.8 billion, ranks as the world's 428th-richest person and wouldn't have any problem pushing the Cubs' payroll up where it should be -- beyond the luxury-tax threshold and closer to the Yankees than the middle-market teams.

I am not a fan of Mark Cuban, the relentless referee-basher. Goodness knows, NBA officiating has its issues. And he makes his share of credible points about mysterious politics behind the scenes. But he does it so often and has been punished so many times -- more than $1 million in fines, which he matches in charity donations -- that the mission becomes counterproductive and loses impact. Certainly, his criticisms of commissioner David Stern, sometimes posted on his blog, have caught the eye of the powers-that-be in Major League Baseball. This could be a problem, Cubdom.

Old crowd wouldn't like him

Do you really think baseball boss Bud Selig wants any part of Cuban's act? Do you think Bud's buddy, Reinsdorf, would want to compete against Cuban just as the World Series champion White Sox try to grab a chunk of the younger market from the awful Cubs? Maybe they'll never sell to Cuban, which might explain why he interjects a caveat that may be code for "the stodgy old men won't like me.''

"To be clear, it's interesting to me,'' he wrote, "but because [the Cubs are] owned by a public company, it has to be offered in a formal manner to potential buyers. With all the private equity money out there, the price could be record-setting and out of my reach.''

As rumors continue to float about the Tribune's willingness to sell the Cubs, despite denials by chairman Dennis FitzSimons, early price estimates for the franchise and Wrigley have ranged from $600 million to $800 million. It's hard to believe Cuban, who quickly is becoming a major player in Hollywood, couldn't round up several big-money investors to help with the Cubs. For starters, call Bill Murray, once he is completely recovered from his recent night in San Diego with Rick Sutcliffe.

The Tribsters don't deserve the ridiculous loyalty of these fans, who packed every nook all weekend to watch follies such as Aramis Ramirez letting a critical pop fly conk him in the head. After the Sunday disgrace against Atlanta, why were these people standing and chanting and bouncing in the ninth inning Monday, as the Cubs were winning their fifth game in 26 tries?

"Let's go Cubbies! Clap, clap, clap-clap-clap!''

And why was Vaughn, a mixed-breed Cubs fan who also likes the White Sox, sounding more excited about a bunt single by Tony Womack than when he and Owen Wilson were eyeing female prey in "Wedding Crashers'' last year? "Let's run away with this one!'' Vaughn exhorted in the press box. "We're starting a new streak. We're gonna get hot, get everyone back from injuries and get back into this thing.''

They're optimistic because it's a way of Cubbie life. And if they are this tolerant of unwatchable baseball, the least they deserve is an owner who might deliver a World Series one of these years. Is it Cuban? An Internet petition is begging him to buy the team: "Fans on a whole are sick of the 'lovable losers' attitude that our management seems to have. We are confident Mark Cuban could bring a winner to the North Side. If he can turn around the Dallas Mavericks, he can turn around any franchise.''

I suspect his inbox will take another beating today. The man has planted a seed.

*Jay Mariotti is a regular on ''Around the Horn'' at 4 p.m. on ESPN.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73498)5/31/2006 3:29:16 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bush and Rove May Find `It's the Economy, Stupid' Won't Work

May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, laid out a plan to win the 2002 congressional elections by stressing national security. For 2006, Rove is framing a strategy for Republicans to sell the U.S. economy.

In a recent speech, Rove argued that Bush's policies of tax cuts and trade agreements had pulled the nation out of recession, created millions of jobs, boosted productivity and increased disposable income. That record can help lead Republicans to victory in November, Rove said in the May 15 speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Political experts say it may be a tough sell: Voters don't feel optimistic, polls show, and growth rates are expected to slow as the housing market cools and gasoline prices remain near all-time highs.

``The administration needs to change the electorate's overall psychology,'' says Stuart Rothenberg, who publishes a nonpartisan Washington political report. ``It would be a huge asset for the Republican Party if people could start to focus on the economy, appreciate it and see it as something that has worked, but I see no evidence that that's going to happen.''

Seventy percent of 1,002 respondents in a May 8-11 Gallup poll said the economy was in fair to poor condition, up from 63 percent in an April poll.

`Abstract Numbers'

``People either feel it in their day-to-day lives or they don't, and no amount of repetition of abstract numbers to the contrary is going to change their perceptions,'' says Bruce Bartlett, a policy analyst in the Reagan administration and author of a 2006 book critical of Bush.

By most major indicators -- from a historically low 4.7 percent unemployment rate to strong corporate profits to the stock market -- the economy is moving forward. ``We are like marathon runners winning the race,'' Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in a May 23 interview.

The next day, Al Hubbard, director of the policy- coordinating White House National Economic Council, said Bush may spend more time in coming weeks to ``highlight all the economic success.''

In his AEI speech, Rove, 55, emphasized the creation of 5 million jobs in recent years. He also said Bush's tax cuts have stimulated growth, making up for revenue lost with lower rates. A tax reduction on stock dividends to 15 percent from 40 percent prompted the biggest companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index to raise dividend payments on 725 occasions, he said. That money is ``going into retirement funds and individual retirement accounts and people's pocketbooks,'' he said.

Low Inflation

And he described ``core inflation,'' which strips out food and energy, as low, citing a U.S. Labor Department report showing a 2.1 percent gain in the 12-month period ended in March.

``The president's tax cuts, trade liberalization and spending restraint helped strengthen the economy's foundation and added fuel to our economic recovery,'' Rove said. ``Not a bad record.''

Other factors, though, may explain why Bush has consistently failed to get credit from the public for growth, and illustrate the difficulty Republicans will have turning Rove's message of economic optimism into votes.

Since the last recession ended in November 2001, the U.S. has added a net 4.35 million jobs, or an average of 82,000 a month, according to the Labor Department. That's less than half the 9.57 million jobs, or 181,000 a month on average, created in the same period of time after the previous recession ended in April 1991.

Companies Gain

``Almost all the benefits of productivity growth have gone to firms, and very little to workers,'' says Harvard University economist Jeffrey Frankel, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, whose adviser James used the slogan, ``It's the economy, stupid,'' to stress the importance of the issue in the 1992 election.

One explanation for the public malaise may be the distribution of prosperity. Total compensation for Americans fell to 65.4 percent of national income in 2005, down from 66.2 percent in 2001, Federal Reserve figures show. At the same time, corporate profits rose to 12.3 percent of national income, up from 8.5 percent in the year Bush took office.

``From middle incomes down, there has been very little gain,'' says Robert Solow, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who won the 1987 Nobel Prize in economics. ``No wonder they feel they're not sharing in this prosperity.''

Tax Revenues

As for Bush's tax cuts, Treasury Department figures show that as the economy recovered from the 2001 recession, federal revenue fell 6.9 percent in fiscal 2002 to $1.85 trillion and dropped again in fiscal 2003. In the third quarter of 2003 -- the strongest three months of economic growth in the Bush presidency -- revenue fell 4.9 percent to $430 billion from the same quarter a year earlier.

Rove's argument about the impact of dividend tax cuts on retirement savings doesn't take into account a Fed study on the effect on the broader investing world. The December report found ``little if any imprint of the dividend-tax-cut news on the value of the aggregate stock market.''

Two days after Rove spoke, the government revised upward the inflation figure he had cited to 2.3 percent, the biggest year- over-year gain since March 2005. Economists say that may be a sign the robust economy is allowing companies to pass along higher costs of labor and commodities.

Toning Down

The Federal Reserve is likely to fight any continuation of that trend with higher short-term rates, says Alfred Broaddus, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. ``The Fed will almost certainly need to react with further tightening to protect its credibility as an inflation fighter,'' he says. ``So the president may want to tone his comments down a notch.''

The housing market -- which has contributed to about half the economy's growth since 2001, according to a Merrill Lynch & Co. report -- offers more cause for concern. Housing starts fell 7.4 percent to an annual rate of 1.849 million in April, the fewest in 17 months, the Commerce Department said May 16.

The Fed is watching the real estate market, recent comments by central bank officials indicate. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, in testimony last month to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, said a slowdown in housing ``could prove a drag on growth this year and next.''

While the Commerce Department said the economy grew at an annual rate of 5.3 percent in the first quarter, economists say gross domestic product growth will slow to a 3.5 percent pace in the second quarter and 3 percent in the third.

`Are You Better Off?'

``The risk is that Democrats can play on the old `Are you better off than you were?' and a lot of Americans are feeling that they're not,'' says Tim Penny, a former Democratic congressman from Minnesota who backed Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security last year. ``This really is a referendum on Bush's tax cuts in an environment in which voters are feeling pinched economically.''

Bush aide Hubbard says the administration is confident of the outcome of such a referendum. ``We would love to debate whether people are better off today than they were 5 1/2 years ago,'' he says.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73498)11/15/2006 3:36:48 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
A SUPERPOWER IN DECLINE: America's Middle Class Has Become Globalization's Loser

spiegel.de



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73498)11/16/2006 1:33:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Man Behind the Mask
______________________________________________________________

As he leads No.2 Michigan into its showdown with No. 1 Ohio State, coach Lloyd Carr remains a private man who's loyal, literate and, would you believe, funny?

By Austin Murphy
Sports Illustrated
Issue date: November 20, 2006

Loyd Carr was talking about his mask. The Michigan football coach was in a corridor at Crisler Arena on a recent Monday, having just turned in a characteristically arid, monotone and sound-bite- free performance at his weekly press conference. Now, out in the hallway, unmoored from the lectern, he sprang to life, reenacting a moment from the previous week when he'd donned a hideous mask, sneaked up on one of his players and scared the bejesus out of him.

What did the mask look like? "Oh, it's horrendous," Carr assured a reporter. It was the face of a guy "who's beaten up and bloodied."

Carr had disguised himself as ... himself, circa 2005. Seriously, did any coach in the country take more abuse last season? Ravaged by injuries, bankrupt of creative ideas on both sides of the ball, the defending Big 10 co-champions went 7-5, the program's worst season in two decades. The many vocal critics in Wolverine Nation bayed for a new direction.

One of the reasons Michigan is No. 2 in the nation and 11-0 going into this week's cataclysmic meeting with No. 1 Ohio State is that Carr agreed with them. That was shocking. The winds of change do not often kick up around this program, in which tradition is revered, night games are out of the question, and the football complex is named for the still-living legend who keeps an office in it. Yet Carr, renowned as much for his loyalty to his staff as his dour countenance, nonetheless nudged both of his coordinators, Terry Malone on offense and Jim Herrmann on defense, out the door, inviting them to pursue opportunities in the NFL. (Malone now coaches tight ends for the New Orleans Saints; Herrmann is linebackers coach for the New York Jets.)

Maybe the folks in Ann Arbor should be more open to change. By shaking up his staff, Carr kick-started a dramatic turnaround. Taking advantage of creases opened up by the zone-blocking scheme introduced by new offensive coordinator Mike DeBord, bumped up after two years as the special teams coach, junior tailback Mike Hart has averaged 124.8 yards per game. That, in turn, has opened up the passing lanes for junior quarterback Chad Henne, who threw for his 17th and 18th touchdowns of the season in the Wolverines' workmanlike 34-3 dismantling of Indiana last Saturday.

If Michigan has a face this season -- other than Carr's mask -- it is the glowering mug of defensive captain and sackmeister LaMarr Woodley. The senior end, whose 11 sacks leads the team, is the soul of the baddest defense in the country.

That unit has been transformed under coordinator Ron English, a highly regarded 38-year-old who joined Carr's staff as the secondary coach in 2003. Rather than wait around to be promoted, English took a similar job with the Chicago Bears last February -- a gig he held for less than a week. That's how long it took Carr to woo him back, by offering the coordinatorship.

Where Herrmann installed opponent-specific packages each week, sometimes overwhelming his players, English simplified the scheme. In exchange the intense, excitable Coach E requires his guys to practice and play at a high tempo. Taking note of what lousy finishers they were last season -- three times the Wolverines lost by allowing opponents to rally in the fourth quarter -- he and the staff put a renewed emphasis on nutrition and off-season conditioning. The result: streamlined athletes working from a streamlined playbook.

It all came together on Sept. 16, when the maize-and-blue cyclone that is Michigan's front seven held Notre Dame to four yards rushing in a 47-21 rout in South Bend. The Wolverines had five takeaways, scored twice on defense and made Irish quarterback Brady Quinn miserable all day as Notre Dame endured its worst beating of the Charlie Weis era.

It would seem to be sweet vindication for Carr. For him to feel vindicated, however, he would have to care what people thought in the first place. The 61-year-old father of six donates many hours of his time to a number of charities. (Closest to his heart is Ann Arbor's Mott Children's Hospital. Working summers in the late '60s on a construction crew, he helped raise that building. Now, he's co-chairman of the campaign to raise money for a new hospital.) A voracious reader, he is deft at dropping quotations from such disparate figures as Thomas Jefferson, Rudyard Kipling and George Patton. He frequently shares with his players passages from books he admires. (In 1997, after being captivated by Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air, he persuaded a member of the ill-fated Everest expedition described in the book to address the team. Afterward, Carr distributed maize-and-blue ice axes to his players.) It is another of his endearing qualities that he couldn't care less if the public ever discovers his endearing qualities. While he was perfectly cordial to this reporter in Ann Arbor last week, willing to shake hands and make small talk, Carr had informed SI that he would not sit for an interview; he did not want a story written about him. Said assistant sports information director David Ablauf, "He feels the emphasis should be on the team."

The football complex, by the way, is named Schembechler Hall, where 77-year-old Bo keeps an office and occasionally pokes his head into meeting rooms. The spirit of Bo lives on in the team's policy toward the press: No Division I-A program is less accommodating. Long ago beat writers nicknamed the complex Fort Schembechler. With few exceptions, Carr is only concerned about how those inside the fort feel about him. And they love the guy.

"He had this aura, or persona, kind of like a president," says junior safety Jamar Adams, recalling his first meeting with the coach. "You felt like you wanted him to be leading you."

"He's got a kind heart," adds Chris Graham, a junior linebacker.

"The guy you see on the sideline -- that's not what you're getting, day to day," says Ball State coach Brady Hoke, for seven years a Michigan assistant under Carr.

"People ask me all the time if Coach Carr ever smiles," says Woodley. Deep down, the Wolverines insist, their coach is very funny.

Examples, please.

"There's the M&M story," says Jeff Backus, a former Wolverines offensive lineman who played his last snap for the Wolverines in 2000. About six years ago an unknown Michigan player poured a large bowl of M&Ms into the soft-ice-cream dispenser at the team's cafeteria.

The result, alas, was not ice cream with M&Ms but a broken machine and an irate coach. Carr's demand that the culprit turn himself in was met with silence.

So the coach became a kind of Inspector Javert, obsessively pursuing the perpetrator. "For years afterward," says Backus, now a tackle for the Detroit Lions, "even after I left, he would stop meetings and start interrogating people. He'd swear he was going to find out who did it, and when he did, he was gonna bust their ass. It always cracked people up."

Carr didn't care about the ice cream. Well, maybe he cared a little. Maybe having a small swirl cone in the evening after two-a-days provided a tiny grace note for his day. The point is, he saw the comic potential of the situation, and mined it.

Then there is the Lone Ranger incident. During two-a-days before the 2004 season, Carr treated the squad to several clips from the old TV series, after which a man dressed as the Lone Ranger strode into the room. "He had it all going on," recalls former All-America wideout Braylon Edwards, "the cowboy hat, the black mask, the badge, the silver Smith & Wesson." After noting the great chemistry between the Lone Ranger and Tonto, Carr handed out silver bullets to the players, then left the stage. All the time he was in costume, says Edwards, now with the Cleveland Browns, "he never broke character. He played that role to a T."

So, the mysterious contents of Fort Schembechler include, apparently, a chest in which Carr stores his many costumes. Perhaps it resides near the dictionary outside his office. Before entering Carr's quarters, players are strongly encouraged to look up a new word and jot down its definition on one of the index cards provided for that purpose. Once inside, they discuss the word with Carr and, if possible, use it in a sentence. On a day he was tardy for a meeting, Hart looked up punctual, then sought to defuse the coach's anger by discussing the importance of punctuality.

That Carr should care so much about his players' vocabularies is not surprising. A former high school teacher of history and English -- "You're lucky you didn't have me," he told reporters, with just the hint of a smile, at the 2004 Rose Bowl -- he got his degree in education at Northern Michigan in 1968. That, as all true Michigan fans know, is the year Ohio State, led by the brash young Woody Hayes, crushed the Wolverines 50-14. That catastrophe led to the resignation of Bump Elliott, who was replaced by Schembechler, who brought Carr on as his secondary coach in 1980.

Carr ascended to the head coaching position 15 years later, after an inebriated Gary Moeller was arrested for assault, battery and disorderly conduct outside a restaurant. Two years later Lloyd did what Bo never could -- he guided Michigan to the national title, its first in 49 years.

Carr had played quarterback at Missouri and Northern Michigan, knew a ton about football and was much more hands-on than your average head coach. He was a terrific recruiter -- as authentic and genuine in the living rooms of schoolboys as he was churlish and cranky on the sideline. Surely, Wolverines fans speculated, there were more national titles just around the corner.

There have been very good seasons since 1997. Five times, including this year, Carr has won at least 10 games. Four times he has won or shared the Big 10 title. But this is one of the country's more thankless jobs. When Carr wins big, fans tend to say, "With the talent he's got, he should win big." When Michigan stumbles, as it did last year, websites begin demanding his head on a pike. Then there is the Ohio State issue. Though Carr won five of his first six games against the Wolverines' bitter rival, he is 1-4 since the Buckeyes hired Jim Tressel in 2001.

Many of the aggrieved fans addressed their concerns to athletic director Bill Martin, who says he "didn't think for a second" about dumping Carr. "You want to fire Lloyd," he says, "you gotta fire me."

One common gripe: By slavishly limiting themselves to hiring head coaches from within the Michigan family, the program was starving itself of new blood and fresh ideas. Those complaints faded this season as the Wolverines sailed up the BCS standings. Now Martin cannot help eavesdropping on the conversations attending the search for a head coach at Michigan State, where the beleaguered John L. Smith will coach his final game this Saturday.

"What I'm hearing," says Martin, "is people saying, 'We need the continuity and stability you see down the road at Michigan.'"

From East Lansing, Carr's career record of 113-34 must look very good indeed. With their solid ground game and suffocating defensive front, the Wolverines could well pull off the upset in the Horseshoe this Saturday. Even if Carr gets his 114th win at the expense of the Buckeyes, however, it is his fate to be misunderstood and underappreciated, the kind of coach of whom most Michigan fans will say, once he is gone: Who was that masked man? We never got a chance to thank him.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73498)11/17/2006 1:30:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Ecuador's leftist presidential hopeful surges in polls

iht.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73498)11/17/2006 2:04:27 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Why not U-M, OSU in rematch for title?
_____________________________________________________________

BY MITCH ALBOM
DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
November 15, 2006

In boxing, every guy has a plan until he gets hit. In college football, everyone has a national championship system -- until it doesn't work.

Lately, pundits have been shooting down a possible Michigan-Ohio State rematch for the national title. They don't like it. Even Bo Schembechler has said he wouldn't want one. Of course, I remember Bo when he didn't want any national championships, either.

The arguments go like this: "If Michigan and Ohio State play again for the national title, it waters down this weekend's game."

Or "If they play again, it's like splitting the series." Or "If they play again, and the loser wins the next time, then it's ... it's ..."

It's what?

It's -- to paraphrase Hyman Roth in "The Godfather" -- the system we've chosen.

And that system is to let computers help rank teams and put the top two in a national championship game.

Hey. I didn't invent the thing. I've been in favor of a four-team playoff for years. But we don't have that. We have rankings. And if No. 1 plays No. 2 and it's a close game, and you follow the way this dumb system has worked all year, then the two of them playing each other again is hardly out of line -- and it shouldn't matter whether you like it or not.

You can't be Mr. Spock most of the season and Captain Kirk at the end.

Can't stop it now

Remember that computers don't account for things like hype or boredom. The computer doesn't care that you can't get revved up for the same game twice in seven weeks. (Which, by the way -- with sports what it is -- is laughable.)

A computer's job is to stick with the facts and apply them as equally in the first week as in the last. So let's run a few scenarios.

Say Michigan-Ohio State is decided by a late field goal. Michigan wins. (Hey, it's my scenario, I can pick who I want.) Who, besides Ohio State, should U-M play?

Well, next up is USC, No. 3 in the BCS rankings -- the same USC that squeaked past lesser opponents this year and only jumped this high because a bunch of other one-loss teams became two-loss teams. Now suddenly the Trojans, who got thumped by -- ahem -- Oregon State, should play for the title over the Buckeyes? Why? Isn't losing to Oregon State worse than losing to Michigan?

But wait. USC has to play Notre Dame, which has been climbing up the outside like a racehorse. What if the Fighting Irish upset the Trojans? Their fans would say Notre Dame must play Michigan for the title.

Except these two teams already met, and the Wolverines trashed them. Why should the Irish get a second chance when the Buckeyes can't? Why is a rematch of an early-season game any better than a rematch of the season finale?

Someone will make a case for No. 4 Florida. But the Gators already lost to Auburn, a team that has lost twice, including a beating by Georgia. Someone else will say, hey, No. 6 Rutgers is undefeated. But are you telling me a Michigan-Rutgers national championship is more desirable than UM-OSU?

You live with a computer, or you lose it. You can't just unplug it.

Blame the system

Now it's true, the BCS also is determined by two polls voted on by coaches and writers. And those voters might say Ohio State had its chance or only conference winners should play for the title or nobody likes a rematch.

But none of that is true in other sports. In pro football, the team you play in the season finale can be the team you face in the Super Bowl. In the NBA or NHL, conference winners can be eliminated by wild-card teams.

You can say that's what makes college football different. But that's silly. What really makes it different is the dumb BCS system -- a system designed to address this problem.

By the way, if we had a playoff involving the top four teams, with No. 1 playing No. 4, and Michigan beat Ohio State on Saturday, guess who U-M might face in the next game.

No. 4 Ohio State.

The truth is, rematches don't ruin anything except an argument. So is college football in the national championship business or the argument business?

Sometimes I can't tell.