Should HoF Voting Be A One Time "Yay or Nay"?

[BucD+ 648]

Interesting conversation (I thought) that was had on the local sports radio show here (98.7 The Fan) about the Hall of Fame voting and it's process.

 

Basically they were talking about how voters (media members) take how players treated the media (e.g. Warren Sapp) and that they take it personally and refuse to vote them in either the first time or even at all.

 

I, along with the hosts of the show, think it's ridiculously unprofessional to input their personal feelings in how they or others (media) were treated by players instead of just basing it on their play on the field. But this wasn't really what this thread's intended topic was meant to be, although please voice your opinion on it if you feel (obviously).

 

Then one of the hosts said he thought that he thinks that HoF voting should be a one time, one answer period. Once they are eligible, it's either yes they are a HoFer or no they aren't. If they are deemed NOT then it's over for them. None of this first or second ballot stuff.

 

One of his reasonings was that it would help with how backed up the HoF voting is for certain positions and of course you either you ARE or you AREN'T a Hall of Famer. Why are they deemed not worthy of going in now, but later deemed worthy to go in? Again, you either are a Hall of Famer or you are not.

 

What is the opinion of the members of the great TGP?

[seanbrock 1,684]

Nah, there are too many guys that belong in the hall already that aren't in.

[RazorStar 4,025]

the backlog is too long to even consider that, unless we want to have a 30-40 class group this year, and start again with about 4-5 a year.

[BucD+ 648]

Nah, there are too many guys that belong in the hall already that aren't in.

 

Yea I thought about that too.

 

But what about doing something like what Razor said?

 

The logjam is a bit ridiculous. Either way they need to straighten that out...

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

If it weren't for the logjam of guys that should be in there, but haven't been voted in, I'd be all for it. It's stupid to vote no one year, then yes a few later. Just dumb, what changes in that time? They aren't playing football.

 

Another thing I've always thought about is, why do the media get votes? I've always felt that they should elect a group of hall of fame guys into a committee, and have them vote on it. To me, it just makes more sense to have guys that will soon be your peers (if they vote you in) voting.

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

If it weren't for the logjam of guys that should be in there, but haven't been voted in, I'd be all for it. It's stupid to vote no one year, then yes a few later. Just dumb, what changes in that time? They aren't playing football.

 

Another thing I've always thought about is, why do the media get votes? I've always felt that they should elect a group of hall of fame guys into a committee, and have them vote on it. To me, it just makes more sense to have guys that will soon be your peers (if they vote you in) voting.

I agree. THere should be a HOF committee made of ex-players and coaches to determine who gets in. Fuck the media.

[BucD+ 648]

I agree. THere should be a HOF committee made of ex-players and coaches to determine who gets in. Fuck the media.

 

Completely agree here.

[Vin+ 3,121]

I would think that you're more likely to have players or coaches hold grudges (and have biases, on the flip side) than members of the media.

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

I would think that you're more likely to have players or coaches hold grudges (and have biases, on the flip side) than members of the media.

The committee would most likely be made up of older players and coaches who have tenure in the Hall, rather than newer players. Maybe there should be a wider voting audience (media) to chose the committee. I don't think that guys who played 10-30 years ago would have grudges or biases towards guys who are playing in our generation.

[blotsfan 2,112]

The hall should be a one time vote with no limit on class size.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Absolutely, positively not. There are too many potential reasons for bias on part of the voters. Not that it necessarily happens all the time, but I'm sure it has and still does.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

I like the idea in principle, but it wouldn't work. There are lots of worthy guys still waiting to get in already.

[oochymp 2,393]

The committee would most likely be made up of older players and coaches who have tenure in the Hall, rather than newer players. Maybe there should be a wider voting audience (media) to chose the committee. I don't think that guys who played 10-30 years ago would have grudges or biases towards guys who are playing in our generation.

I see what you're getting at, but I could still see (for example) somebody who played for the Redskins his entire career voting against Cowboys players, not likely, but it could happen, and you could always set up a system where voters can be removed by the rest of the committee if everyone feels they're being too biased and I'm sure there'd be enough room for deserving players to get in over a biased member or two.

 

As for the overall thread, I don't think it's ridiculous for the committee to take how the player treated the media into account, when they're evaluating players character is a part of it (albeit a small part) and if the guy was a dick to every member of the media then he was probably the same to a lot of people he worked with and I don't think it's out of bounds to hold that against him. While I agree that it could present problems with a once and done system, under the current system the players who should get in will get in, it just may take them another couple years, and I have no issue with that.

 

Regarding the question of a one time vote, I'd say hell no, it's not always easy to recognize the impact a player or (especially) a coach has on the game while he's playing/coaching, sometimes you need a little bit more perspective. It could also present issues where players in the same position are up together, for example Curtis Martin was up in 2011 for his first year of eligibility, so was Marshall Faulk, nobody would deny Martin as a HoFer (he made it this year) but when he's up in the same year as Faulk the comparison is inevitable even though Faulk is one of the best RBs of all time.

Edited August 23, 2012 by oochymp

[BucD+ 648]

I like the idea in principle, but it wouldn't work. There are lots of worthy guys still waiting to get in already.

 

That's why, like Razor said, they would do one to clear the logjam of guys waiting and then implement the new committee of tenured HoFers and the new policy of you're in or your not. One time deal. None of this first time ballot etc. crap.

 

There also shouldn't be a limit of how many per year.

Edited August 23, 2012 by BucD

[Omerta+ 1,206]

AS it is set up with the limit there is no way it should be a one time you are in or out thing. My train of thought on that is I personally think that Cris Carter is a hall of fame player. That said what if next year Ray Lewis, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Randy Moss, and AJ retire ? They were all better players but does that mean that if those five should and probably would get elected first ballot demean CC's Accomplishment ?

 

As to the committee who elects them, it is a crap shoot. Because even ex coaches and players still have bias, just listen to the media. Jim Brown is jaded against a rookie who has yet to play. Joe Namath's highly overrated drunk ass would not elect most of the Jet's and so on. The media is far too bias and can not even do their own jobs much less elect players in to eternal glory and recognition.

 

SO the question becomes who should do it ? I think there really is no way to do it completely objectively. I think the only way to really do it objectively is find career position coaches and have them evaluate the class's positions in their respective fields with some sort of weighted system on who is in and who is out taking into account career stats, value to the team and representation of that respective team, time waiting, etc. Then only allow them to give them one perfect grade off of that. I mean it is objective but then what happens if Randy Moss or even TO retire and then people who are waiting have more time waiting and it screws the better player. I mean there is no way someone does not get shafted.

 

As to the unlimited class size I agree to a point, but then what happens when players are getting in that should not. with no limit on it people are not forced pick the best of the best they can put any amount they want so they no longer have to think critically. It is again a powder keg.

[Tridentdawgpound 1,043]

I've always said they let too many people in every year already. Shouldn't be a one shot deal.

[Dutch 874]

Absolutely, positively not. There are too many potential reasons for bias on part of the voters. Not that it necessarily happens all the time, but I'm sure it has and still does.

 

 

It will be bias when it's T.O's turn. 2nd all time leader in receiving & they probably gonna try and snub him like they did Cris Carter.

Edited August 26, 2012 by dutchff7