Mail has been pouring in regarding the DirecTV stuff I wrote about in the Power Rankings column, about how they'll take a game off the dish if it's on network TV in your area, even though it might have been pre-empted by another network game ... which means that you don't get that game at all.

I didn't know who I was reaching when I launched my complaint, but I'm glad to hear that there are so many others who feel as I do.

This is who I heard from:

Paul of Gainesville., Fla., who suggested filing a complaint with the FCC and then a lawsuit.

Mike of Ankenny, Iowa, who somehow managed to find the Dallas game on another channel.

Matt of Carlinville, Ill., who is as upset as I am at this outfit raising its price while providing less service.

Larry of Hamilton, Mass., who said that DirecTV is replacing the better quality of the dish's 700 series with much lower transmission quality on the local channels (I never knew this).

Stu of Asheville, N.C., who complained and got a free month of Showtime as a payoff. Jay of Raleigh, N.C., got the same deal. I guess Showtime is big in North Carolina.

Scott of Fairfax, Va., who got hit with the reverse of what I experienced. He lost the overtime part of the Jets-Giants game. And is just as mad as I am.

Kristine of Alpharetta, Ga., who is also furious and ended her e-mail with, "You are not alone..." (The Redhead looked at this a little oddly. "Exactly what does she mean by that?" she said).

First of all, DirecTV doesn't seem to be the real culprit here. There is a league mandate against providing dish service when a network game is on at the same time. As far as my peculiar complaint that there comes a time when you get nothing -- no dish, no network -- well, that's a gray area.

I have talked to the league and to the networks. This is a complicated situation, but I think these are the people to get mad at, in order:

1. The NFL
2. The networks
3. DirecTV

I'm still working on this, and it will be the subject of my column next week.

Now I've gotten myself all worked up to answer your questions. So, Jimmy, bring on the rippers first. There was actually only one serious rip, although Jimmy said he had a few "How can you rank the Titans over the Patriots?" repeat performances. I answered that last week, and it's enough already. This one, from Mike of Kingman, Ariz., was quite logical: Cards beat Bengals, both teams have the same record, dumb old Z has Cincy three places higher. Explain, please.

You're not going to like the explanation. Before the game I had the Bengals nine places higher. I closed the gap by six after the Arizona victory. To have gone in a more radical direction would have screwed up my board and thrown more teams out of whack. Trust me, sometimes it works that way. I do take this task seriously. This is a midseason thing, and it will shortly sort itself out. If they were the final rankings, or close to it, then we'd be in trouble.

The following isn't a rip, but it's another rankings e-mail, so I might as well get them all out of the way at once. It comes from Linda of Richmond, R.I., and I'll tell you something. I'm mad at Rhode Island. The reason is that one of my great joys in life used to be loading up at Custy's, where, as you know, they'd give you all the lobsters you could eat. I'd surprise you if I told you how many my son and I knocked off one night. Last time I tried to go there it was closed, terminado, kaput! Now what's your question? Oh, I see, comma, it's a warning. "I just wanted to warn you against dropping the Pats out of the top four this week. They're on a bye and, regardless of what the Vikes, Panthers and Seahawks do, there's no way to justify moving them down. None at all. Zero. Got it?" Ya wohl, mein fuhrer. They will go no lower this week, but they could go higher if Miami upsets Tennessee or Jacksonville somehow, some way, manages to flip Indianapolis.

On to more sane matters. Stefan of Toronto wants my opinion on which stats are overblown and which ones are meaningful. There are lots of overblowns, but off the top of my head, three come to mind. First, completion percentage for quarterbacks. This is the motor that drives every facet of the QB rating system. But you could complete 80 percent of your dink passes and still be nowhere. Another one is total yards in a game. It sucks in garbage yards at the end, when a team is getting blown out. I have my own stat for that -- "meaningful yards" -- and to arrive at it, I stop counting after the action on the field has ceased being meaningful to the outcome. Tackles and assists is another creepy one. Guys who fall on a pile get an assist. Someone who forces the play, really sacrifices himself and blows it up so someone else can inherit the tackle gets nothing. Also, why don't they record a sack as a tackle as well? I mean, someone is tackled and falls down, right? As for meaningful stats? Oh, yards tackled for a loss, sacks given up (if you can accurately identify the culprit), yards per completion. I find this last one very helpful in trying to understand what the QBs are up to.

Two pluses for my observations on owners, and thanks, fellas. Andrew of Boston draws an interesting parallel to thoroughbred racing, where, he says, the oil sheiks and nouveau riche are destroying the sport. Gary of Philly adds, "Is Marion Motley still the greatest player you've ever seen, as you wrote in your Thinking Man's Guide?" For sentimental reasons I'd say yes. But if you shot me with sodium pentathol I might say Jim Brown (he never missed a game) or Lawrence Taylor.

Dan of Columbus, Ohio, wants me to find a way his Ravens can upset St. Louis this weekend. It's gonna be tough, mainly because Bulger seems unbeatable in the Eddie Dome. He's 9-0 there over two years, with the Rams averaging 31 points a game. But here's what you have going for you: St. Louis has not faced a defense like Baltimore's this year. The closest to it was that of the Giants, who beat the Rams by 10 in Week 1. The weakness of that argument, of course, is that Warner was the QB then. But I'm still not sold on the Rams' O-line. I think that if the Ravens can pressure it enough, it might come apart.

Very interesting, almost existential stream of consciousness e-mail from Albert of Ottawa. He takes a sad look at the NFL's parity dilemma, and honestly, I don't want to get into that because it's too heavy a pull right now for this tired old horse. But the part that interests me is where he wonders why, as a diehard Cowboys fan, he isn't more excited about this year. Why does he feel that the Cowboys "improved only slightly and most other teams got a little crappier?" I read his e-mail to the Flaming Redhead, and she said, "Tell him to just enjoy it and not to be so analytical." No, I'm sorry, but that would be too simple a response to a heartfelt question. I know exactly how he feels. It's like looking at your favorite picture on the wall, and getting the feeling that it's slightly tilted. I think, Albert, that the problem is the Cowboys didn't really face top-grade competition -- until they met the Bucs, who might have had their lapses but were top-grade that day. Then Dallas got murdered. And what's haunting him is: How close was that to the true Cowboys team? I think we'll find out at New England. Parcells vs. Belichick. If Dallas can win there, then they must be taken very seriously indeed.

More Cowboys memorabilia. Matt of Billings, Mont., wants me to rate Troy Hambrick on a scale of one to 10. Two years ago, when he averaged 5.1 yards a carry as Emmitt's backup, I'd give Hambrick an 8-plus. Wow, I thought. This guy is just hell on wheels. Whatta burst he's got! Last year, averaging 4.0 as Emmitt's backup? Oh, about a seven. Looked pretty good but not as good as the previous season. This year, carrying a 3.4 average, I'd say he's about a six. The same burst doesn't seem to be there. I think they have him so worried about fumbling that he's running under wraps.

Tom of Richmond, British Columbia, watches a lot of NFL football with his daughter, Elise, whom he says is a kindred spirit of mine. Oh yeah? Ask her how she feels about a defense that goes into one of those soft zones to protect a lead. Sorry. It doesn't take much to set me off sometimes. He says she's bugged by the sight of all those little cornerbacks getting outjumped by tall wideouts. Why aren't there more tall DBs? I just wrote about that. Lenny Walls of the Broncos is 6-foot-4 1/2, the tallest corner in the league by two and a half inches. Possibly the tallest ever. He considered Randy Moss his greatest challenge. He got eaten up. Not fluid enough. Too stiff, which seems to be a common ailment among corners who are too big. Ex-Raiders TE Todd Christensen, whom I correspond with, said that the most athletically gifted corners, the ones who are the best suited to perform the coverage skills of the position, are 5-9 to 5-11. Running with a guy, shading him downfield, breaking on the ball quickly are, I believe, more important than the ability to not get outjumped. It happens, but not that often. Little guys can jump high, too.

Charles of Grants Pass, Ore., wonders whether instant replay should continue as is, or if all challenges should come from the booth. Personally, I like coaches' challenges better than the ones that come from the booth. I think the officials in the booth are too picky -- actually, they challenge some things I don't think the coaches would bother with. These delay the game and create an overlap between the one o'clock and four o'clock contests and screw up my charts. It is a sure sign of my immaturity that I look at things from a purely personal standpoint, without regard for the greater good of game, country or regiment.

Eric of Rochester, N.Y., which is Bills country, wants to know what's wrong with Buffalo's offense. OL is not quite good enough. Bledsoe's getting too much pressure. I see him throwing off his back foot a lot. He's been sacked quite a bit. He's a quarterback who usually gets sacked a lot because he holds the ball. I think the sacks and pressures are starting to get to him. For some reason, maybe the receivers' fault, he's not getting to his hot reads against the blitzes as well as he should.

Patrick of Columbus, Ohio, would like to know where I rank Jay Novacek in the pantheon of tight ends. I went through all of them when I answered that Shannon Sharpe question last week. Novacek was the ultimate possession receiver, and always managed to find an open spot on third down. Just ask Troy Aikman about him. The Cowboys offense started going down the drain when Novacek retired. He wasn't a huge threat because he wasn't that much of a downfield presence, but he sure helped Dallas win a lot of games. What will hurt him in the Hall of Fame balloting is the fact that he'll have to stand in line behind so many other members of that Cowboys offense ... Aikman, Smith, Michael Irvin, Larry Allen, etc.

Two questions from Dave of Santa Barbara, Calif., and I'm not sure which one to give preference to. Why is it so bad to change coaches at midseason? And, question No. 2: Can you recommend a good, reasonably priced port? Sure, lots of them. Plymouth. Gloucester. Said. Aden. Of Spain. Yeah, right, screamingly funny, I know. Port used to be cheap. Now it's expensive. Ruby port, which gets the least aging in wood, is still reasonable, but I can't stand it. The taste is too raw and alcoholic. I love a good tawny, sometimes even more than a true vintage, but the tawnies are getting very pricey now, too. Are you locked into the ports from Portugal, or can you venture out a little? If so, try the Yalumba Galway Pipe from Australia. Comes on like a fairly mellow tawny. Costs about $20 at a discount shop. Their Antique Tawny is also very good, but more expensive. Are you into Madeiras? I actually prefer them to port. The commercial ones, such as Leacocks and Blandy's, are just fine. If you give them a whirl remember that the ones that are most portlike, the sweetest, are Bual and Malmsey.

As far as changing coaches, I was going to give you a nice, snappy answer about how it destroys team chemistry or physics or something, and I was going to show you that the interim coaches who take over generally wash out. Then I started looking it up. Levy in Buffalo, Schottenheimer in Cleveland, Fisher in Houston (now Tennessee), Berry in New England (took 'em to a Super Bowl), Coryell in San Diego ... they all took over as interim coaches and were successful. And I only looked at the AFC. I'm sure there are more in the NFC. So now I'm arguing the other side, your side, and my argument is -- destroying what chemistry? There's no chemistry anyway because that's why the coach gets replaced. The answer is it's fine, provided the team knows what it's doing, if it doesn't rush to judgment in a panic mode, but I guess that could apply to life as well. And port. And Madeira.

From Jim of Silver Spring, Md.: Which Dolphins team was better -- the unbeaten 1972 squad, or the follow-up Super Bowl champions of '73? Bob Kuechenberg, the left guard on those teams, used to swear to me that the '73 team was better. Just not as lucky, as you pointed out.

Seth of Pittsburgh is working in Kosovo. Hasn't been able to see a single game (which is still another reason not to go over there). Can I please catch him up on his beloved Steelers? Remember how Tommy Maddox had everyone rubbing their eyes last year? Well, the spell has worn off. He is now a below-average NFL quarterback. Teams can crowd the line to stop the run if they have to. At times Jerome Bettis looks like he's through, but every now and then something gets him mad, and he's fairly effective. Amos Zereoue is kind of flashy, but not really their style. You called it on the O-line. Injury problems, guys playing who just aren't that good. Defensively, the secondary looks slow and the Steelers are having trouble covering. And, of course, thanks for your nice sentiments.

Dan of Jacksonville, Fla., offers a vote of confidence for Byron Leftwich, despite his rookie errors. Dan adds that Leftwich's rookie rating is higher than "all but one or two of the great quarterbacks in their rookie years." I'll go along with everything you say, Dan, except the last thing. Never, never, never compare QBs of different eras using the current rating system. In Joe Namath's Super Bowl season his rating was 72.1. Next year it was 74.3, the highest of his career. QBs in those days threw down the field, and if the pick came, well, they'd make up for it next series. Now any QB off the street can crank out a 60 percent completion average if he keeps his stuff short and safe. And that's the key to these ratings. In the old days, 60 percent was very good.

	MAILBAG Dr. Z will answer select user questions each week in his NFL mailbag. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

Kwame of Queens, N.Y., is in there pitching for two locals. Giants strongside LB Brandon Short is a Pro Bowl sleeper, he says. I've had my eye on him for quite a while. Very solid against the run. Doesn't leave the field in the nickel, either. I'd like to see him make the Pro Bowl, although there are people ahead of him in the line for my all-pro team. Second local -- Jets receiver Santana Moss. OK, he caught 10 balls against the Giants, but that was one game. "Outside of Chad Johnson and Marvin Harrison," Kwame writes, "is there an AFC wideout who has been better than Moss?" Yeah, Hines Ward. And about five others I could name.

Joseph of Orlando, Fla., is grumbling about the Dolphins' Ricky Williams. Only two 100-yard games. Measly 3.4 average. Missed the block on Indy's Dwight Freeney, who caused the fumble at the end of the game. Every time I've seen Williams he's done what he's been asked to do. The times he's been stopped, there was no place to run. As far as the missed block, he was in a bad position to get a real shot at Freeney, who was coming low on an outside wheel. It wasn't that Williams was stationed there from the go with responsibility to chip on the pass rusher.

From Hugh of Hamburg, Pa.: Why is everyone moaning about Washington's protection scheme for Patrick Ramsey? Philly's Donovan McNabb isn't getting much more help, either -- not from his blockers or from coach Andy Reid, whose passing attack has been anemic. That's easy -- because Reid has already proved himself. He's got the skins on the wall and Spurrier doesn't. At least not in the NFL.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Paul Zimmerman covers the NFL for the magazine and SI.com. His Power Rankings, "Inside Football" column and Mailbag appear weekly on SI.com.