Joe, the real problem I see with your logic is that you are presuming that the offense has a right to keep the ball unless and until the defense recovers the fumble. That is simply a faulty premise.

The rule that the offense keeps the ball on a fumble out of bounds is an arbitrary rule. The rule could easily be the other way. I believe the CFL rule gives it to the team that touches it last. I don't like that rule because I think possession of the ball should be rewarded, not merely touching the ball, but it's just as arbitrary as the NFL rule. Same as giving the D the ball when it's out of bounds in the endzone. The offense gets to keep the ball on the entire rest of the field so I think it's a small but important consolation to the Defense to say "if you can force the offense to commit this huge mistake when your backs are against the wall, your gonna get rewarded by getting the ball back." It makes for a better, more exciting, less predictable game.

In the final analysis, both rules are arbitrary and it's just a matter of what you think is fair based on the situation. Ergo, the disagreement.

Joe, this is not aimed at you but rather those who have spoken up on your behalf. Obscure rule! Are you kidding. This play happens several times a year, at least. I've probably seen this play live or in highlites at least 50 times.

there is nothing at all out of whack about kickoff and punt touchbacks, as opposed to the fumble through the endzone touchback. The principle is identical: if the other team sends the ball through your endzone, you get the ball at your own 20. It's the same thing.

I guess all you KC fans are getting a lot of satisfaction out of being convinced that your team has the best offensive line in the league. As my dad used to say, "that and a token will get you on the subway." I guess it wasn't even good enough to get them to the AFC championship and however good or bad Denver's is, their line got them there. Isn't a man entitled to his opinion that Denver has the best O-line in the game without being bombarded by a bunch of guys whose team didn't even make the playoffs and played like crap down the stretch.

Seems like the best o-line in the league should get you farther than that. Last time I checked a ticket to the pro bowl wasn't nearly as important as who actually perforned better on the field. And it isn't possible that some old-timer like, say Willie Roaf, might have gotten to Hawaii on his reputation. As all the "objective" sources seem to indicate Denver is clearly in the running for best o-line, so I don't think you guys are accomplishing anything by spouting your anti-Denver bias except to possibly give us neutral fans a reason to root for Denver.

Two things are abundantly clear. Chamberlain still holds the record for points in a game and Kobe's 81 was at least as impressive as Wilt's 100.

Look at the analysis over at ESPN.com. Wilt took about 15 more shots than Kobe did and had a lower shooting % in their respective games. Additionally, the fact that his teammates were fouling late in the game just to get him the ball back shows that his "real game" total, as opposed to garbage time was less than 100. To adjust for the difference in the tempo of the games, one only has to observe that Kobe scored 36% of the total points in the game, whereas Wilt was around 32%. Kobe did what he did to win his team the game and it worked, same with Wilt.

There is no question that giving the ball to Kobe every time is the Lakers best strategy. If the other team can't stop him they should just keep giving it to Kobe. This "team game" thing is kind of nonsensical. If giving the ball to the best player every time is the best strategy for winning why would you do anything else. And there's nothing wrong with having a guy swing for the fences every time. If his name is Babe Ruth I wouldn't want him doing anything else. Also, interesting that no one made any of these points when Michael Jordan was dominating the league. To all the Kobe bashers out there, leave your animus at the door.

it's good to see some recognition go to Mario, unquestionably one of the great athletes of our time and one of the handful of greatest hockey players ever. I can't disagree with King's choice of Gretzky as the greatest ever but I think it's a very close call between him and Mario. Mario may have been a better goal scorer, lighting the lamp on 19% of his shots as opposed to 17.6 for the great one. Their points per game is very close with Wayne at 1.92 and Mario at 1.88. Gretzky obviously did it longer with Mario playing the role of Hockey's Ted Williams, reaching unbelievable heights only to be dragged down by reality.

I note a tendency on King's part to downgrade the accomplishments of those with super athletic skills, such as Mario or Wilt in favor of less impressive though obviously equally talented physical specimens such as the Great One. I wonder if that makes any sense. Gretzky could not have been as great as he was without possessing unbelievable physical talent as a hockey player. Those talents were less apparent at first sight than Mario's but they were present nonetheless. It's sort of like those who used to argue that Bird was less talented than Magic. As a way of looking at sports I don't think it holds up.