David Ortiz has played first base in 10 of Boston's 119 games this season. AP
	MAILBAG Have a question or opinion for Pete? He might answer/address it in his mailbag. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

With the college football season fast approaching, the debate over a playoff can't be far behind. With that in mind, the 10 Spot takes a look at some of the great perennial sports debates -- and where we stand on them:

1. The designated hitter: Traditionalists have been howling ever since Ron Blomberg strolled to the plate for the Yankees in 1973. The National League, of course, has never made the switch, though most other levels of baseball (from college to the minors) have followed the AL's lead. My take: As a young man I counted myself among the staunchest baseball traditionalists but have since given up the ghost on the DH. In this era of increased specialization, it's just silly to send pitchers up to hit because they typically can't do it. Pitching is too tough of a job these days for hurlers to have the time to keep their hitting up to snuff, even if they showed real hitting talent as recently as college. Plus, NL pitchers get to take advantage of a dead spot in the lineup for the first six innings or so until the pinch-hitters start up. Let's leave the hitting to the hitters. We don't make position players take a turn on the mound, do we?

2. College football playoff: Those who argue against a playoff say that it would ruin the sanctity and importance of the regular season, in which "each game is a playoff." Others like the traditional bowl games and worry that a playoff would make all but the top bowls relatively meaningless. The NCAA cites fears about playing too many games and interrupting studies, though for some reason the players in Divisions I-AA (sorry! Championship Division), II and III manage to survive. My take: A playoff makes so much sense, financial and otherwise, that only the NCAA could manage to screw it up for this long. Whether it's eight teams, 16 or 32 -- or even a measly "plus one" -- let's just get it done.

3. Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame: Rose has been banned from both baseball and Hall eligibility for betting on the sport while he managed the Reds. His 15-year window to be voted in by the writers has expired so eventually it will be up to the veterans committee, though only if Rose is placed on the eligible list. My take: Baseball has had one main rule since 1919 -- Don't bet on the sport. Thus a lifetime ban from holding a baseball position, such as manager or team executive, seems fair. But the Hall of Fame is for performance on the field, not exemplary character (hello, Ty Cobb and Cap Anson), so the all-time hits king belongs in Cooperstown. Still, in part because he denied the betting for so long, I won't lose a wink of sleep if Rose is kept out.

4. Instant replay in the NFL: Those in favor of replay argue that if we have the technology to ensure that key calls are correct, we should use it. Those against it complain about the annoying delays, the occasionally inconsistent application of replay and argue that officiating errors, just like mistakes made by players, are simply part of the game. My take: If replay can correct just a few obvious errors during a season, especially on key plays that can change the course of a game, then it's worth it. The system does need constant tweaking, such as this year's move to decrease the time allowed for reviews, but the principle is worth fighting for.

5. Should college players be paid?: Scholarship athletes generally aren't allowed to hold part-time jobs and wouldn't have time to do so even if they could. That seems unfair especially to athletes from poorer backgrounds, particularly as colleges earn millions in revenues from their efforts. Then again, college athletes already do receive a significant benefit in the form of a full scholarship. My take: A small monthly stipend for pizza, clothes and the occasional beverage seems equitable. It could be added to the cost of a full scholarship along with room, board and books. For the sake of fairness, it should probably go to athletes in all sports, not just revenue-producers such as football and basketball, though perhaps not to athletes whose families make over a certain income level.