Originally, this was going to be a rant about how the Emmy nominations, which will be announced tomorrow, always overlook deserving talent in favor of usual suspects like "Will & Grace" and "The West Wing," regardless of whether such warhorses were actually good during the eligibility period.

Then the New York Times ran a story about how the Emmy procedures have changed this year in order to get some nods for less traditional picks. The story was a convoluted attempt to explain even more convoluted rules, but here's the meat of it:

"In past years, the whittling of the 4,500 entries to five nominees in each category was a two-step process. The members of each academy peer group... voted on the eligible shows, with the top five vote-getters in each category being named as nominees. The winner was then chosen by smaller panels of peer-group members.

"This year, an interim step has been added. The first vote narrows the eligible shows to a list of 10 or 15 potential nominees, and a specially chosen committee then screens and rates an episode of each of those shows, with the ratings used to narrow the list to five nominees. Then a larger panel of peer-group members, numbering from a dozen to several hundred depending on the category, votes to determine the winner."

Like I said, convoluted. Supposedly, the screening committees will help open the process up a little bit, providing for some new series and individual nominees.

The conventional wisdom is that the Emmys lean toward the four big networks and HBO, to the detriment of other cable networks such as UPN and the WB.

But if this does indeed open things up, here are some nominations I'd like to see - and that I'm betting the Emmys will overlook. It's no coincidence that they're all from series on UPN and the WB, both of which will morph into the new CW in the fall; these networks were perpetually snubbed by the Emmys.

• Michael Rosenbaum: On "Smallville," Rosenbaum has given us the most interesting portrayal of Superman villain Lex Luthor in the past 30 years.

• Tichina Arnold, Terry Crews, Tyler James Williams: The stars of "Everybody Hates Chris," a show based on comedian Chris Rock's memories of growing up in Brooklyn, N.Y., make up the core of TV's best current sitcom family.

Arnold and Crews have perfect yin-yang chemistry as Chris' take-no-mess mother and overworked, frugal father, while 13-year-old Williams is amusingly put-upon, exasperated and yet ever hopeful as the hapless 12-year-old Chris.

• Kristen Bell, Enrico Colantoni, Jason Dohring: Critics often champion Bell for her witty, spunky performance as "Veronica Mars," an amateur teen sleuth who is also vulnerable to the often-manipulative men in her life and who has a loving but not always obedient relationship with her father.

The ever-underrated Colantoni (who helped make "Just Shoot Me" bearable) is a wise and affectionate dad whose gentleness belies a tough streak. And as troubled rich kid Logan Echolls, Dohring mixes dry sarcasm and moral ambivalence to become one of TV's best not-quite-good/not-quite-bad guys.

Sarah Drew, Chris Pratt: As shy Hannah and blithe Bright on "Everwood," they were TV's most romantic - and ultimately, most heart-rending - couple this year, an unlikely duo whose love grew out of friendship and blossomed beautifully... until Bright blew it with one act of infidelity.

• Lauren Graham: As hip mom Lorelai Gilmore on "The Gilmore Girls," she rifles off TV's most rapid-fire dialogue with a sense of timing that beats her equally motormouthed co-stars. But this season, Graham was at her best, as Lorelai's glibness was leavened by her struggles with her estranged daughter (now reconciled); her reluctant fiance, Luke (Scott Patterson); and the revelation that Luke has a daughter from a previous fling.