I think this whole "talented vs. regular guy" thing is interesting and deserves a column at some point. My whole question is why, exactly, people are sure that certain players are less talented than others. (Having Jerry Rice be mentioned as being anything other than incredibly talented kind of boggles my mind.) I mean why are we sure that Ben Roethlisberger is less talented than, say, Daunte Culpepper? Maybe Culpepper has a stronger arm or is marginally faster; but maybe Roethlisberger has physical talents that are just less obviously apparent. It's really hard to say where talent ends and whatever else begins. I think often what we chalk up to drive or work ethic is a part of talent (or ability or athleticism or whatever you want to call it) that we just perceive differently.

And I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that there is a racial component at play here too. Very often in sports, talented is code for black and hard working is code for white.

A big part of the reason for holding the Super Bowl in a neutral site (as King has pointed out in the past) is that a warm weather site is better for the business surrounding the game. Every year, there are "meet the stars" events, flag football games with current and former players, opportunities to hock leage gear, video game promotions, etc.

Of course all of this has been changed a bit by the Super Bowl being in Detroit this year. That would seem to indicate to me that maybe the whole neutral site thing might be more vulnerable that I thought. Still, Detroit is an indoor stadium. Can you imagine all those corporate partiers and celebrities dealing with a game in Chicago in late January? In Green Bay?

I think one good thing about the neutral site is that it is a recognition of the fact that the two conferences are rarely equally strong. Seattle had a much better record than Pittsburgh and was a number one seed-- but does anyone think Seattle's road to the big game was anywhere near as difficult? The neutral site at least makes up for a big discrepancy between the strengths of the conferences, a little bit.

Too true. Sorry to jump on you. I gues I just brought it up here because I respect your opinions and you are accessible in a way ESPN talking heads are not (to your credit.) And before anyone points it out, I also acknowledge that Wilt's 100 point game had very little to do with basketball either.

I'm disappointed know one has taken the opportunity to mention the high school game where Lisa Leslie had 101 points AT THE HALF or Max Wermelin's 272 points in a Finnish boys league game.

I guess I was responding to the media's fawning over Kobe in general, not just to your piece. And I know you aren't responsible for what others are saying. It's just that many others are saying the same thing you are, and I don't buy it.

You're either in the sports media or you're not.

Every dude on ESPN is saying that "Kobe is better than Wilt". Marc Stein is telling anyone who'll listen that Kobe's better than Wilt. As far as Wilt persecution goes, it is a well documented fact that during his career he was villifed by the press and the fans because he was so dominant.

People regularly say "Throw out the numbers with Wilt." I guess you have to, because otherwise a man who averaged over 50 points and 25 rebounds for a season pretty much has to be the greatest player of all time.

I simply don't understand how you can be so certain that the athletes of the time were so terrible. Kareem and Russell were great athletes. Elgin Baylor, were he playing today, would be a Tracy McGrady or Vince Carter. Jerry West was a great athlete. So was Connie Hawkins, who played the same time as Wilt. So were a lot of people you are dismissing as "dish washers." (You really have such contempt for people like Bob Pettit and Pete Arizin and Bob Cousy?)

The fundamental point is this: you can celebrate Kobe's 81 point (2 assist game) and not use it as a springboard to say that Wilt's achievement is devalued by what Kobe did, that somehow scoring 100 points is suspect or illegitimate.

I watched the end of Kobe's game, and I'll tell you: what I saw was incredible and amazing. And it absolutely was not basketball.

Why must Wilt Chamberlain never receive any respect? His whole career-- his whole life-- he was villified and ignored for having a physical edge on the competition. He was actively rooted against his entire career by casual fans and is criticized for "only" winnning two championships. And now that he's gone, the media insists on using Kobe's 81 point (2 assist) game to attack him once again. What was Wilt supposed to do, not score as many points? You point to Kobe's statistical output and say "Wow, look at that!" But when anyone talks about Wilt, it's "You know, you can't really judge Wilt by the numbers..." What?

Do you reserve the same criticisms of Shaq-- that his physical dominance alone is the reason he is so dominant? Why does Shaq receive such fawning, while Wilt is regulated to constant criticism? To suggest that Wilt enjoyed a better physical edge on his opposition in his career than Shaq does is ridiculous-- when Dale Davis is considered a quality defensive matchup on Shaq I think you'll agree there is a dearth of big man talent in the game. Shaq has played two quality centers at their prime-- David Robinson (who I would argue was never that good) and Hakeem Olajuwon (who absolutely embarrassed Shaq during Olajuwon's peak). Wilt, meanwhile, played against both Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Russell, arguably the two best centers not named Wilt Chamberlain.

It's not enough he gets it in his life.

Does he have to be so disrespected after he's gone, too?