I know its not part of this blog, but I bumped into watching Leverage last night. After Fringe, I enjoyed the lighthearted show and would like your take on it. It seems like it could get good. ("Leverage," I like. The tone is right, the twists are rather clever, and the characters are a bit different. -- David B.)

What I keep wondering about is this: With maybe a dozen scripted shows worth watching, why do the networks schedule those precious few to compete with one another? I do understand competitiveness, but why not schedule so that those of us with no interest in American Idol-style trash have more alternatives without fiddling with their VCRs and DVRs?

Seems to me the networks would get higher ratings for their most expensive shows if they scheduled to maximize their own audiences instead of trying to go head-to-head against the competition. This isn't a baseball game.

So tonight I'll be watching Lost (the title of which now generously includes the audience) and probably recording Life. Trying to jigger the VCR to work with the cable box is more trouble than it's worth so I'll again go without sampling the much-touted Lie to Me. So how is that to Fox's advantage?

Well, it IS sweeps month, yes?

I have never understood why the networks always pit really good shows against each other? To my way of thinking, it makes much more sense to put a really good show against a really bad one, to squeeze the bad ones out all that much faster.... What do I not understand? (The funny thing is, it's NOT a sweeps month, technically -- because there was so much worry about confusion caused by the transfer to all-digital TV, sweeps were postponed this year until March. -- David B.)

Sweeps? Ooooooooooops.... well, I 'm definately NOT in the know... However, I find it (at least) gratifying and intriguing that Davey had the same observation as I did about the better shows.... What gives?! I would love to understand the logic....