Skip to content

Ten ways to improve the Hall of Fame selection process

9109029-large

Every year, on the Saturday before the Super Bowl, 44 men and women gather in the host city and determine the members of the next class of Hall of Famers.

Typically, the panel considers 15 modern-era candidates, which systemically is whittled down to five finalists for an up-or-down vote.  The voters also consider two previously-determined finalists determined by the Seniors Committee, which comes up with two players who, for whatever reason, were passed over during past sessions.

In the end, as few as four and as many as seven secure admission to Canton.

Every year, complaints inevitably arise regarding the persons who make it and those who don’t.  At times, those complaints are aimed at the process.  Usually, the debate fizzles by the next day, when the Super Bowl starts.

This year, largely through the efforts of Jason Whitlock of FOXSports.com, the criticism has lingered.  The fact that Whitlock’s opinions have sparked a pointed response from two of the voters has served only to give the discussion ongoing life.

Though some of the voters who perhaps feel a threat to their fiefdom may not like it, any effort to consider whether the process can be improved represents a valuable expenditure of time and effort.  In this vein, we now offer 10 specific ideas for improving the procedure for determining who gets in, and who’s left out of, the Hall of Fame.

1.  Expand the panel.

The panel currently consists only of media members, some of whom are unemployed, underemployed, self-employed, and/or semi-retired.  One voter is assigned for each team, even if the voter has no specific jurisdiction over that team.  For example, Len Pasquarelli of The Sports Xchange holds the vote that corresponds to the Falcons, even though he hasn’t focused his efforts on that team for years.  Ditto for David Elfin, the Redskins’ representative who no longer works for a Washington-focused publication.  Others, like Joe Reedy of the Cincinnati Enquirer, had limited experience covering the NFL but was the only guy at the only paper in the town in which the team is headquartered.

That’s not a knock on Joe, whom we know and like.  But, surely, he’ll acknowledge that he had limited experience covering the NFL when he got the assignment.  Before inheriting the Bengals beat from Mark Curnutte in 2009, Reedy previously covered the Jets for two years (1997 and 1998) at the Post-Star in Glen Falls, New York and the Jaguars for one year (1999) at the Gainesville Sun.  Many would contend that three relatively distant years at non-first-tier publications shouldn’t be enough to secure 2.27 percent of the say as to who makes it to Canton.

The panel also includes one representative of the Professional Football Writers Association and 11 at-large media members.  That’s 44 total voters.

The panel, put simply, is too small.  (And, trust me, I’m not saying that because I’m angling for a seat at the table.  I don’t want one, I don’t expect to ever be offered one — especially after writing this article — and I wouldn’t have the time to do the assignment justice unless and until I become unemployed, underemployed, self-employed, and/or semi-retired.)  Because the human beings who comprise the panel are subject to the same human factors that influence us consciously or otherwise, one way to neutralize those realities is to involve more voters.

As explained below, that doesn’t mean more media members.  To enjoy the full faith and confidence of football fans, the process needs more voices, more perspectives, and less power in the hands of any one voter.

Many of the persons who hold these votes take great pride in the assignment.  As a result, they naturally will be inclined to resist any changes that will make the achievement less significant, such as adding significantly more people to the process.

Regardless, significantly more people need to be added to the process.

2.  Overhaul the Board of Trustees.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame is governed by a Board of Trustees.  Some of the names are instantly recognizable, like Commissioner Roger Goodell, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.  (One name is recognizable but curiously out of place. ESPN’s Todd Blackledge, whose bailiwick is college football, has a seat on the Board of Trustees.)

There is also a cluster of persons with no connection to the NFL, but who hold positions of prominence in and around Canton, Ohio, the geographic location of the Hall of Fame.

With all due respect to those Canton-area businesspeople, it makes no sense for the policies and procedures of the Hall of Fame to be set by folks whose biggest contribution to the process is the ability to show up for meetings without incurring travel expenses.  Though it makes sense for the Pro Football Hall of Fame to seek the support and involvement of the Canton business community, the Board of Trustees should be composed of folks who have a direct role in the game and who have the best interests of the game at all times in mind.

To the extent that there are some Canton-area businesspeople who have a direct role in the game, such as Packers great and successful Akron businessman Dave Robinson, they should have a seat at the table.  We also realize that some members of the Board of Trustees are instrumental in organizing the events that surround each year’s enshrinement ceremony.  But most of the persons who are setting policy for the Hall of Fame should have names that ardent fans and followers of the sport instantly recognize.

Currently, it’s roughly a 50-50 split.  That needs to change.

3.  Change the bylaws.

The Board of Trustees ultimately determine the contents of the Hall of Fame’s bylaws.  All too often, members of the panel who are faced with criticism of the selection process instantly explain that their hands are tied by the bylaws.

So change the bylaws.

Every year, the NFL changes multiple rules in the hopes of making the game better.  In the past half-decade, the only meaningful change to the bylaws occurred when the modern-era finalists were increased from 13 to 15.

The bylaws shouldn’t be used as a shield for avoiding change, but as a sword for implementing it.  All too often, the bylaws become an excuse for the status quo, not the impetus for improvement.  For that reason alone, the powers-that-be need to be willing and able on an annual basis (or more often) to look for ways to improve the rules that govern the selection process.

4.  Include Hall of Famers.

Every year, the winner of the Heisman Trophy acquires the ability to vote on all future winners of the award.  The logic is simple, and undeniable.  Winning the Heisman represents membership in an exclusive club, and the men who have won it should have a say in who gets it.

The argument applies even more strongly to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Hall of Fame coach John Madden believes that the busts talk to each other at night.  If they do, the first comment when a new crop joins them shouldn’t be, “Who in the hell let that guy in?”

They say it takes one to know one, and a Hall of Famer is in the best position to know another Hall of Famer.  Though giving Hall of Famers votes would introduce the possibility of biases and prejudices, those factors surely apply from time to time (or, as the case may be, every year) to the 44 men and women who currently have the keys to Canton, especially when players who earn a reputation for being hard on the media seem to have a hard time getting into the Hall of Fame.

The only requirement?  To vote, the Hall of Famer must attend the meeting.  No proxies or absentee ballots.  If they show up, they get a say in the process.

5.  Include coaches and other established football minds.

In responding to Jason Whitlock’s column calling for change, Bob Gretz argued that “Rick Gosselin has forgotten more football in a week than Whitlock has known in his life.”  That same observation likely applies to many of the folks currently on the selection committee.

And that observation probably would apply to all of them if, say, guys like Joe Gibbs or Ron Wolf or Bill Parcells or Chuck Noll were in the room.

So why not give people who have devoted their careers to coaching football and/or running football teams a direct say in who should and shouldn’t land in the Hall of Fame?  For those not already in the Hall of Fame, they’d have to forfeit their own eligibility for the Hall until two years after leaving the committee.

Frankly, those folks are far better suited to picking the new members of the Hall of Fame than pretty much everyone on the selection committee as its currently constituted.

6.  Categorize the candidates.

Every year, the finalists are thrown into a vat regardless of the position they played, with the new members of the Hall emerging from a stew that can’t distinguish between pancake blocks and pick-sixes.  It would make more sense to allow one new member per year from each of the various positions on the field:  quarterback, running back, receiver/tight end, offensive line, defensive line, linebacker, defensive back, and coach/G.M./contributor.

The finalists would be determined by position, with the list of candidates trimmed to three-to-five before the selection meeting, and with no requirement that a person be admitted from each position group.

This would expand the potential maximum size of the class from seven to eight, but the high-water mark of seven per year has been in place since 1964, the year after the charter class was inducted.  At the time, the NFL and AFL had only 22 teams.

Today, the NFL has 32 franchises, as a result of the addition of two in 1966, one in 1967, one in 1968, two in 1976, two in 1995, one in 1999, and one in 2002.  Moving the maximum annual class from seven to eight in light of the growth of the league isn’t simply justified, it’s overdue.

7.  Scuttle the Senior Committee.

The Senior Committee serves the purpose of allowing the selection committee to revisit two players from past seasons who fell through the cracks.  In other words, it gives the selection committee to right past wrongs.  By improving the selection process, there would be no reason to clean up past messes by devoting two of seven annual spots to guys who failed to get in when competing directly with their peers.

In his response to Jason Whitlock’s criticisms, Bob Gretz unwittingly proved our point.

Gretz explained that, ever year, a pair of Hall of Famers join the Seniors Committee to assist in the process of whittling down the previously overlooked players to two finalists, who seem to almost always get in.  For the 2011 class, Hall of Fame linebacker Jack Ham and Hall of Fame tight end Charlie Sanders worked with the Seniors Committee.

Ham, per Gretz, made a strong case for linebacker Chris Hanburger.

“Ham told the group that when he went to the Steelers in the 1971 NFL Draft out of Penn State, the Pittsburgh coaches gave him film of Hanburger to study,” Gretz writes.  “There was no doubt in Ham’s mind that Hanburger was a legitimate candidate.  Whose word are your going to take on this subject:  Hall of Fame linebacker Jack Ham, or Jason Whitlock?”

Gretz essentially is admitting that the selection committee screwed up by not putting Hanburger in the Hall years earlier.  With the involvement on the selection committee of guys like Hall of Famer Jack Ham convinced that Hanburger should get in, that wouldn’t have happened.

In other words, if Ham and the other Hall of Famers had a seat at the table, perhaps Hanburger wouldn’t have been erroneously passed over.

After all, whose word should the Hall of Fame been taking on this subject:  Hall of Fame linebacker Jack Ham, or any member of the media?

8.  Embrace transparency.

Though many voters seek refuge in the bylaws and regard them as if they’d been etched onto stone tablets by the hand of God, many also will acknowledge the validity of Whitlock’s complaint that the process unfolds in secrecy.

Peter King of Sports Illustrated and NBC, who has nothing but the best interests of the process in mind (and I say that not because he’s a friend and a colleague but because I’ve spent enough time around him to know that’s who he is and how he operates), would welcome transparency.

I’d be fine with our votes being made public, which the Hall currently doesn’t want us to do,” King wrote in his February 7 Monday Morning Quarterback column.  “The feeling from Hall officials is if our votes are published, then some voters might vote differently; if a voter from Buffalo, for instance, didn’t vote for Andre Reed (and this is only an example, not the truth), he might face a backlash when he goes back to cover his team. Or in some small way it might affect his vote if he or she knew everyone would know exactly how the vote went. I believe it’s incumbent on us to not hide behind the privacy of the room. The Hall is a huge deal, obviously, with burgeoning interest every year. If we’re going to sit on the committee and sit in judgment of these men for enshrinement, I think you ought to know how we vote.”

If one of the most respected members of the NFL media believes that the process should be more transparent, then it’s fair to say that the process should be more transparent.  With an expanded panel of voters, anyone who covers the team on which a player played most or all of his career could abstain from voting, thereby addressing the biggest concern that King raised.

9.  Involve the NFL.

As mentioned above, the Commissioner and various owners occupy seats on the Hall of Fame’s Board of Trustees.  But the NFL should be even more involved than that.

Though it’s called the Pro Football Hall of Fame, it’s essentially the NFL Hall of Fame, and the NFL should be in position to propose changes to bylaws and initiate procedural enhancements aimed at improving the process of determining each class of enshrinees.

One change the NFL would likely make relates to the consideration of off-field conduct.  Currently forbidden by the bylaws, the reality is that plenty of voters consider the things a candidate did when not playing football, especially in close cases.  The bylaws, then, should change to reflect the reality of the process.

If the NFL is the perpetual custodian of the highest levels of the sport, the NFL should have much greater involvement in and dominion over the museum that celebrates those who made the biggest impact on the game.

10.  Commit to continuous improvement and change.

Most of the criticisms of the current selection process arise from a perception that the system is stale and stagnant, in large part because change doesn’t happen often and doesn’t seem welcome.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell repeatedly explains that the league constantly must look for ways to enhance and improve the game.  That same attitude must infect, and overtake, the Hall of Fame.

So many things about the selection process need to be changed because so little change has happened in the 48 years since the Hall of Fame opened.  Egos and agendas and pride and any other factor that stands in the way of change needs to be set aside, and folks need to look for ways to make the process better, and ultimately more fair.

We’re not advocating change for the sake of change.  But in this case there has been little or no change.  Changes need to be made, and then the Hall of Fame needs to be willing to consider future change without external calls for it.

Permalink 44 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Features, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
44 Responses to “Ten ways to improve the Hall of Fame selection process”
  1. rtl1984 says: Feb 13, 2011 8:18 PM

    Cris Carter not being in the HOF is a crime.

  2. mantastic54 says: Feb 13, 2011 8:24 PM

    Interesting how a guy who would not reveal who told him that Steve Smith said Jimmy Claussen is a punk wants the voter’s choices to be made public

  3. norcalraider510 says: Feb 13, 2011 8:25 PM

    “Ten ways to improve the Hall of Fame selection process” 1- get rid of the dumb@sses who keep ken stabler,tim brown,jim plunkett,ray guy,lester hayes,and cliff branch out of the h.o.f

  4. righthereisay says: Feb 13, 2011 8:29 PM

    Very nicely written article. I agree with a lot of your points, with the exception of :

    —The only requirement? To vote, the Hall of Famer must attend the meeting. No proxies or absentee ballots. If they show up, they get a say in the process.

    What I could see happening is a bunch of teammates would all come and start trying to vote someone in. It would add bias to the whole thing (more than there already is)

    If somebody is in the top 10 WR’s for many statistics, they should make it into the Hall of Fame, PERIOD. This includes Chris Carter, Tim Brown, and yes, Hines Ward when he becomes eligible. (he won’t make it the 1st time because all the other teams fans hate him)

  5. gforce90 says: Feb 13, 2011 8:36 PM

    Pittsburgh has too many in the HOF.
    Pittsburgh sucks!

  6. blackqbwhiterb says: Feb 13, 2011 8:42 PM

    whatever they do, I hope they NEVER allow internet voting by the fans…..totally worthless for the pro bowl and it wold ruin any leftover credibility of the selection process for the Hall of Fame……….just sayin’

  7. dragonfly99 says: Feb 13, 2011 8:52 PM

    Jerry Kramer not being in the HOF is a bigger crime. Let’s hope something is done while he’s still alive to enjoy it.

  8. juanhughjazz says: Feb 13, 2011 8:55 PM

    here’s another one. make it a hall of talent instead of a hall of fame. hall of fames are a joke. many guys get in undeservedly because the media loves them or they’re just plain popular. i’ll never waste my time at canton or any other hall of fame.

  9. irishgary says: Feb 13, 2011 8:58 PM

    I thought this was a football blog. Lately it appears to be lawyer deposition
    very boring.

  10. bluvayner says: Feb 13, 2011 9:06 PM

    That’s a lot of space, considering that there’s nothing wrong with the current process.

    There will always be complaints, unless you let everyone in. I think that, if anything, they’re letting too many in. It’s not the Hall of Pretty Good. It should be a special place for special players.

  11. profootballwalk says: Feb 13, 2011 9:10 PM

    How many guys in the HOF now spend every week watching ten different games, and isolating different players and watching them throughout the game? Most ACTIVE players only watch film of the team they play next week, and the way they vote for the all-pro team is a joke – at least as bad as the fan’s vote. Most people who aren’t scouts rarely cover the whole league, and many virtually never see half the league play.

    And of course, former players and coaches all have their favorites, who they’d push ahead of other deserving guys. And former NFL guy should have to leave the room when a former teammate is up for a vote on any level.

  12. rcunningham says: Feb 13, 2011 9:14 PM

    11. Include Cris Carter

    In b4 Viking haters.

  13. oldpftusernewname says: Feb 13, 2011 9:17 PM

    I pretty much whole-heartily agree with #4 & 5, and not many of the other ones. The only people judging these men should be thoroughly knowledgeable football people.

    In regard to #5, no media members should be included unless they pass the criteria for football knowledge. For instance, Dr. Z would qualify, but many of the others you named would not.

  14. normswifevera says: Feb 13, 2011 9:19 PM

    Love how you take Gretz’s comments and say he “unwittingly proved your point”, when Gretz was responding to Whitlock’s claim that Chris Hanburger doesn’t even belong in the HOF.

    And that’s basically the whole thing a nutshell. Even if you could invent some perfect HOF voting process, people are still going to bitch about it because Player A made it in and Player B didn’t.

  15. youboettcha says: Feb 13, 2011 9:20 PM

    In your position list, you forgot Kicker/Punter. Also, what if two obvious first-ballot hall of famers retire the same year? What if Deion Sanders and Darrell Green had retired the same season, or if Manning and Brady do? Just because they’re the same position doesn’t mean you should have to exclude one.

  16. jc1958cool says: Feb 13, 2011 9:22 PM

    let the former players decide, those are their peers! they know who was the best, cause they played against them!

  17. youboettcha says: Feb 13, 2011 9:27 PM

    Baseball’s HOF is too exclusive. But the reason the Pro Football HOF includes 4-7 each year is that there are so many positions, and 53 players per team. Baseball is pretty much pitchers and hitters. It’s all about stats. NFL Lineman don’t really have stats, but for the NFL, you know a Hall of Famer when you see one (most of the time).

    Also, instead of the Hall of Talent (or Fame), it should be the Hall of Accomplishment.

  18. cappa662 says: Feb 13, 2011 9:30 PM

    Actually, I think they need to reduce the panel. Too many writers have a voice, when it should be about the players getting in.

  19. angrycorgi says: Feb 13, 2011 9:38 PM

    I agree with PF for once…having people with exceedingly limited football knowledge or experience function as voters on who should/shouldn’t get into the hall is ludicrous…that makes as much sense as trusting that a half-wit lawyer with no football experience can provide you with accurate NFL information.

  20. quizguy66 says: Feb 13, 2011 10:17 PM

    agree with the earlier comment about your point #6 – specialist Ykickers, punters and your Steve Taskers) should be additional category. Under your scheme, it’s impossible for a guy like Vinatieri to get in. That’s a glaring omission – by putting players in categories you don’t have complaining about someone taking a spot and some worthy specialists will finally get their just due.

    I still think there should be a veteran committee – too many guys have been passed over by a flawed process. Someone like Ken Riley has no shot otherwise (your revamped system apperars to skew too modern I’m afraid).

    -QG

  21. ktfulmer says: Feb 13, 2011 10:19 PM

    A couple of observations:

    1. Jason Whitlock has forgotten about more lard than most members of the selection committee know.

    2. The league has expanded twice since the last time voters were able to vote for additional players. An expansion of an extra player or two a year would help clear some of the backlog, and would be extremely warranted.

    3. Involving players and coaches in the process sounds good, but they come with an agenda. “That guy cut blocked me in 19 ott 7, so screw him, he is not getting in!”

  22. jcusa514 says: Feb 13, 2011 10:19 PM

    the only people who complain about the HOF selection process are:
    -writers who voted for someone who did not get in.

    -fans/coaches/teammates of a player that did not get in.

    -fans of a player that did not get in on their first opportunity and think that player will never have a chance to get voted in.

    get over it people. to be honest, i think they let too many people in each year. it should be more like baseball, 3 players a year, if that. its too watered down as is

  23. jokendave says: Feb 13, 2011 10:20 PM

    I think they should be judged by their peers, not some people who upset because of an interview or non interview. Face it half the people voting at the meeting have no clue on who should and shouldn’t be in. Sports writers are un-qualified to pick HOF people. People who have played the game should have the say. Not some pencil neck trying to get an extra pay check.

  24. rcunningham says: Feb 13, 2011 10:29 PM

    I take it back, induct Randall Cunningham :)

  25. Deb says: Feb 13, 2011 10:36 PM

    Excellent suggestions, Mike. Now for your next article, please tell rank-and-file fans how we can make our voices heard on these issues and on the CBA. Can public pressure from their audience make a difference?

  26. ruffbufffire says: Feb 14, 2011 2:48 AM

    Chris Crater couldn’t carry Andre reed jock strap!!!!

  27. joetoronto says: Feb 14, 2011 6:00 AM

    Getting rid of all “reporters” from the panel would be a great start, and Peter King should be the first to go.

  28. tdbragg says: Feb 14, 2011 6:14 AM

    Your article is dead on the money . The selection process needs to be overhauled and until it is they’re will be deserving candidates who will probably die and leave this world without ever taking they’re rightful place in Canton . A perfect example is L.C. Greenwood of the Pittsburgh Steelers . L.C. was without question the most feared defensive end of the 1970′s . His tall lanky frame and cat like quickness made him nearly impossible to block for a span of several years in the 70′s . His biggest setback was the fact he played opposite , Mean Joe Greene . He single handedly dominated Fran Tarkenton and the Vikings in Super Bowl IX . The Vikings had no answer for him and never came close to blocking him the entire game . Bottom line , L.C. Greenwood has been done a major injustice and it needs to be fixed .

  29. angrycorgi says: Feb 14, 2011 7:49 AM

    Do the right thing and put Ryan Leaf in the HOF!

  30. angrycorgi says: Feb 14, 2011 7:54 AM

    Herschel Walker needs to be in the pro football HOF. Not just because of his stats (first player in history to gain over 4k yards in 3 major categories), but also because he was the reason the 90s cowboys were so freaking ridiculously stacked and in turn the reason for free agency being created.

  31. str82dvd says: Feb 14, 2011 8:03 AM

    I disagree with the baseball HOF mentality, requiring a certain benchmark of stats to achieve a bust in Canton. A few years of transcendant play trumps a 10 year Hines Ward type career, in my humble opinion.

  32. footballhistorian says: Feb 14, 2011 8:21 AM

    The best start would be to require all members be (or have been) a player, coach or owner (but they can’t vote for anyone on their current or past teams OR the membership is distributed equally amongst the teams). Most journalists are biased fools…and 5th columnists (thanks to Bill Parcells)

  33. rooneyruleblues says: Feb 14, 2011 8:54 AM

    Is it just me or does almost every post on this site mention Peter King? It is almost like a Peter King Ad in every post.

  34. umrguy42 says: Feb 14, 2011 9:28 AM

    Is making votes transparent really a good thing? Your argument of possible backlash in a hometown seems like a BAD thing – could restrict a voter’s true feelings…

  35. stevedigre says: Feb 14, 2011 11:28 AM

    The HOF inductees have basically become a SB ring vote. The season MVP has become a QB popularity vote. Both have lost interest with me.

  36. deep64blue says: Feb 14, 2011 11:58 AM

    You missed the most obvious improvement – ban all members of the Media from taking part, it’s a fundamental conflict of interest for the people reporting the news to be making the news.

    Make the Selection committee ex-Players and Coaches together with existing enshrinees.

  37. iwishiwasindc says: Feb 14, 2011 1:27 PM

    Excellent article and some great posts. NEVER HAVE FANS VOTE would = Dancing WTStars (palin, anyone) or American Idol. Members of HOF should be allowed to vote and the Chris/Cris ‘s should both be in. Agree w/ last line of deepblue64!

  38. CKL says: Feb 14, 2011 1:36 PM

    Great topic for discussion and good article.

    That said, I’m with deep64blue, nothing will matter quality wise until they get rid of a majority of media vote. I can see having a couple guys on the committee but that’s it. The only three media members I believe are qualified enough football knowledge wise to evaluate HOF membership are Mike Mayock, Pat Kirwan and Rick Gosselin. And Mayock was once a player and Kirwan a coach & GM.

    I understand you (MF) respect PK and that’s your right and maybe you know a lot more about him than we do from his writing but most hardcore NFL fans I know think he’s a fluff writing self-important hack.

  39. penceja says: Feb 15, 2011 10:27 PM

    Some categorizations definitely need to be implemented. The HOF is about players. Excluding a player because a non-player was deemed an appropriate choice, is ridiculous. Clearly, John Madden and Vince Lombardi would be the first to step aside to let a player in – this is a guarantee because of the character that they exhibited in their careers. As far as the other arguments go – they are on point.

  40. bachslunch says: Feb 17, 2011 5:38 PM

    Agreed with a few of these suggestions, specifically transparency (#8) and to a limited extent expanding the committee (#1). Rotating panel membership might also be an alternative to #1. But I’m not at all in favor of abolishing the Seniors option, as there are a large number of deserving and overlooked older players who should have their cases reviewed or re-examined — it’s just important to have good nominees like we had this year instead of weak recent options such as Floyd Little, Dick LeBeau, Marshall Goldberg, and Emmitt Thomas. And while bias plays a role in media voters, that bias will only get a whole lot worse if players and coaches get added to the panel mix — as the horrid cronyism example of the Baseball HoF Veterans Committee over the years clearly demonstrates. There also should be one or two nominations at most per year from a pool of coaches and contributors, to be voted on separately as happens with the Seniors, so they don’t take away slots from a player. But I don’t think the system is as broken as some folks think — some tweaks are really all one needs. Finally, Jason Whitlock needs to be seen for what he is — an attack troll sportswriter in the mode of Dan Shaughnessy and Bruce Jenkins. I say don’t feed the trolls, never mind take them seriously.

  41. profootballknowitall says: Feb 18, 2011 1:18 PM

    in reply profootballwalk how many voters do that same thing??? And if they do, do they have the knowledge to understand it for themselves or do they have to depend on the commentators for their “expertise”? By the way, many of them do not understand what they are seeing.

  42. jamson64 says: Feb 20, 2011 10:00 PM

    There is definitely a problem.

    Chris Carter is 3rd in receptions, 6th in yards, and 2nd in TDs. It is near criminal he has not been enshrined.

  43. domer75 says: Feb 23, 2011 1:11 PM

    The problem with all the Halls of Fame is that either you should be in the Hall of Fame or not. First year eligible, either you are elected or you are not. If not there should be no further years to qualify. Your qualifications don’t change from year to year so why allow the name to appear on the ballot more than once?

  44. GG Eden says: Feb 7, 2012 10:28 AM

    My simple suggestion is that every single eligible person for the HOF, that is not currently in, should be inducted. And just start each year after selecting the newly eligible ones. Remove the backlog i.e.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!