The Patriots undefeated season should have an asterisk on it.

No, the asterisk was put there to discredit Maris' achievement. See, NOBODY wanted Maris to get that record, including the commissioner. Maris was an unpopular player in NY and considered an unworthy hick by MLB. For the record, that asterisk was later removed and is the only record in the history of major American sports to have a physical asterisk put next to in an official record book. That being said, there is no basis for your argument if you are saying the asterisk you propose would denote something differently from the Maris asterisk. There is no precedent for such. "That is true, but it still does not justify the physical asterisk. I'll go back to the Marris-Ruth thing. I don't know the numbers exactly but I am sure you could take the number of games ruth played and check Marris's numbers at that point in the season and he would have less than 60. An asterisk next to marris says that Ruth accomplished the most in that given number of games. Again the asterisk give Ruth credit, it does not discredit marris." Again, this is completely wrong. Ford Frick, the Commissioner of baseball who made the unilateral decision was also a good friend and the ghost writer of Babe Ruth. If you ever read a book authored by Babe Ruth, it was actually written by Frick. He further refused to attend any games as Roger neared the record. The entire thing was a sham to protect his friends record. Frick was not exactly a neutral arbiter on the subject. The claim that it was intended to to show Ruth accomplished the most HR's in a 154 games season is beyond ludicrous. No other record was treated in this manner, ONLY the home run record. Many other season records fell after the season was increased, for obvious reasons. None were afforded an asterisk to denote the number of games accomplished in. It was put in solely to diminish what Roger achieved, to the delight of Yankees fans, BTW. Here is a quote from Roger before the asterisk was lifted: "They acted as though I was doing something wrong, poisoning the record books or something. Do you know what I have to show for sixty-one home runs? Nothing. Exactly nothing." (Roger died never knowing that MLB officially recognized his record as the asterisk wasn't removed until a few years after his death) That asterisk is the only one we have when referring to a physical asterisk in any sporting record book in the history of sports. If that's not the sort of asterisk you are talking about, then you are making something up out of whole cloth only to dismiss it. We typically refer to that as a straw man argument. I've never seen a straw man set up as the basis for a debate before, though. Your OJ argument doesn't work, either. Fact is they did cheat, they got caught cheating, and they were punished for cheating. Using your own analogy as basis for whether or not they should receive an asterisk the answer would have to be yes, because they WERE convicted. The asterisk, whether physical or figurative, is the same from a historical perspective. What you are trying to do with this debate is absolve the Patriots of the cheating conviction so their legacy isn't tainted. That's not possible, nor should it happen. (To answer your questions about the # of games in the Ruth-Maris thing, Ruth played in a 154 game season while Roger played in a 162 game season. It's true that Maris didn't hit 61 in the first 154 games, however, he also didn't hit his first until the 11th game of the year. If you take the games played from his 1st to his last he actually did it in 3 fewer games than Babe did.)