Comments on: On Hall of Fame voting, transparency could be counterproductive

By: bringbacktheflex

bringbacktheflex — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:47:39 +0000

They need to push the eligibility back to 10 years. There are so many changes to the rules that make average guys look great compared to deserving guys from the 50′s, 60′s, and even 70′s. Inducting after 5 years… the guys are still too fresh in the minds.

Ex. Why isn’t Drew Pearson in the HoF? He and Staubach invented the Hail Mary pass. He was on the receiving end of so many game winning catches, and his stats or comperable to other WRs of his time that are in the HoF. But his stats pale in comparison to a 16 game season WR today (or even 5 years ago) with looser passing and coverage rules. That’s why a significant number of these voters need to be old enough to remember the guys from 20, 30, or 50 years ago.

By: fmwarner

fmwarner — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:13:31 +0000

I think expanding the voting pool is a good idea. But transparency is not. Imagine the trouble a voter might have covering the beat if it’s publicly known that his vote is keeping a hometown player out? I think transparency will cause more voters to vote on factors other than merit more than secrecy will.

By: whyalwaysthehate

whyalwaysthehate — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:16:13 +0000

CC was not the best player of his time

… not the best player of a year

… not best player of his conference

… not best player if his division

… not best player of the week

… not best player of the game

… not best player of his team

HOF??

Skills, no heart. Lacks intangibles. No.

By: salmen76

salmen76 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:59:19 +0000

The NFL Hall of Fame is a joke! They put in who they want in when they want them in for the reasons they want them in. Jim Plunkett won 2 Super Bowls and was a great QB. His parents were both blind. The Patriots drafted him but gave up on him too quick. Al Davis gave him a shot with the Raiders and he became one of their best QBs they ever had. Look what he overcame to be a Super Bowl Champion TWICE! Dan Marino never won NOTHING. He’s in the Hall of Fame. Jow Namoth won one SB and he’s in the Hall of Fame. Niether one of them are even a pimple on Plunketts butt. Also, Plunket is a native American. Namoth and Marino are not native Americans. Yes, i believe rasism has alot to do with Jim Plunket not being in the Hall of Fame. If the NFL wanted him in there he’d be in there. But they DON’T want him in there so he won’t be going, EVER. that’s the way the NFL does business. Carter whining about not getting in the Hall of Fame is so funny. Because guys like Plunkett deserve being in the Hall of Fame and Carter should never even be considered. Like i said, the NFL Hall of Fame is a JOKE! Geaux Saints!

By: joetoronto

joetoronto — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:42:27 +0000

east96st:

Good point. I brought the family there 4-5 years ago and I couldn’t agree more, it’s looks really tacky.

Everything about the NFL is impressive except the Hall of Fame, and that’s not right.

By: rajbais

rajbais — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:40:23 +0000

Expand???

Bad idea!!!

Baseball’s HOF has 500 writers voting players in. Do you know how hard it is to get into Cooperstown????

By: cosmoman11

cosmoman11 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:13:32 +0000

The members of the committee act as if being HOF voters make them better than everyone else. Maybe they should be limited to serving for only 3-5 years. Maybe end up with 44 people who have a little humility. The two guys from St Louis are both arrogant blowhards. And Peter King may be the biggest name dropper working in sports today.

By: teedraper

teedraper — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:47:55 +0000

If the media thinks he’s a jerk then he’s a definite HOF in my book.

By: FinFan68

FinFan68 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:47:55 +0000

Too many people keep blasting about people “who never played the game” vote. That’s garbage. (That mentality means that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Carter should be the only people eligible to vote for POTUS)

You do not have to have done a thing in order to appreciate the greatness of someone who did. If not, your opinion of who should and shouldn’t get in is hipocricy at its finest.

The HoF process is flawed. There are ways to fix it but there will always be feelings of impropriety. I believe that each living member of the HoF should get an up/down vote of the finalists (along with an expanded pool of writers/coaches).

Get rid of the senior committee and limit eligibility to 10 years after retirement. They could have a one-time separate consideration for all the players eligible until recently. Vote in a class of 20-25 more or less that a majority of people agree deserve enshrinement. They could revisit that concept on a much smaller basis every 10-20 years or so to clean up any additional issues since then.

By: melikefootball

melikefootball — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:34:35 +0000

Thumbs up to …..threed61…says it as it was for C.C.

By: rufustfireflyjr

rufustfireflyjr — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:27:34 +0000

Forget OTAs. I can’t wait for free agency and the draft.

By: east96st

east96st — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:22:44 +0000

If anyone end up writing or emailing, ask them to fix the Hall while they are at it. It’s just wrong that the most popular and profitable sport in America is represented by a HOF that looks like it was put together in 1962 and you can see everything in less than two hours. It’s 2012 and the NFL is loaded. Any fan should be able to pay his/her admission and see extensive displays on the progress of the game, access any or all of the Super Bowls, and see far more about the players that grace they Hall then their busts and name plates. A few, select players have some very short clips you can access, but it is far, far too few. Each player that played from when the game was first broadcast and on, should have a complete bio with stats and a video montage of his career. That can be thrown together on any halfway decent laptop. No excuse for the Hall to be so backward and look so shoddy.

By: krashie21

krashie21 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:12:46 +0000

Awwwww……apparently Peter King’s feelings are HURT.

He can write and say everything he wants about the process, but after all of the evidence he’s displayed over the years, today’s column seals the deal for me.

He doesn’t want his old boys club broken up and he’s an outright liar for saying that he doesn’t “do this for power”……..

Give me a break. Kick this biased, yellow, liar off the committee once and for all.

By: worldsgreatestbearsfan

worldsgreatestbearsfan — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:11:27 +0000

Peter King and the other top football reporters are largely access peddlers. They buddy up to the top players, get access in exchange for positive press. How many times have you heard King mention in his column he texted Tom Brady after the game. Any player who doesn’t play that game gets shunned, limited mentions in the column. The top players like Manning, Brady that have big marketing campaigns know all that publicity sells shoes, sports drinks, and fUGGly looking boots. When it comes to Hall time they go with the guys that game them the most access, regardless of what type of player they were.

By: jbraider

jbraider — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:10:03 +0000

Let’s say you are a HOF voter and you have one place left on your card. You are thinking WR and trying to decide between Carter and Tim Brown.

Look at the stats:

Brown: 9 Pro Bowls
Carter: 8 Pro Bowls, 2 All Pros

Brown: 1094 receptions 14,934 yds 100 TDs
Carter: 1101 receptions, 13,899 yds, 130 TDs

Brown: 13.7 yds/rec
Carter: 12.6 Yds/rec

Brown: 3320 Punt rtn yds, 10.2 yds/ret
Carter: 0 punt returns

Brown: 1235 Kick rtn yds, 25.2 yds/rtn
Carter: 291 kick rtn yds, 20.1 yds/rtn

Those are pretty balanced, and a reasonable argument can be made for chosing either one over the other based on the numbers.

From this I make 2 points:
1. A person who must chose between 2 candidates where there is no significant difference in merit MUST make a decision based on something.
2. How could you possibly accuse someone of bias for selecting either one of these candidates (or Reed either for that matter?) when the decision has to be subjective.

Now when someone picks Keyshawn Johnson over Carter, then I’ll listen to complaints

By: joetoronto

joetoronto — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:07:06 +0000

Screw Peter King and the horse he rode in on.

By: yzguy431

yzguy431 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:34:57 +0000

can’t wait for OTA’s to start.

By: cliffordc05

cliffordc05 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:30:19 +0000

There is nothing substantially wrong with the current method of selecting HOF members. I still have not seen a good argument for passing over one of this year’s inductees in favor of Parcells or Carter. Both of them will get into the Hall but neither merited a first year or speedy induction. Carter is a fringe candidate and is no more deserving induction than Andre Reed but is obviously more visible because of his position at ESPN.

By: threed61

threed61 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:25:57 +0000

I watched nearly every game Carter played in MN. He was a poisonous influence on the sidelines, bringing down the level of play, and a coward who played the sidelines to avoid getting hit. He never showed up for the big games. He doesn’t belong.

By: duanethomas

duanethomas — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:20:39 +0000

I am comfortable with the HOF process. Its not perfect but no system would be and eventually all deserving players will get in at some point.

Thumbs Up – Like it

Thumbs Down- Change it.

By: rufustfireflyjr

rufustfireflyjr — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:19:12 +0000

I don’t believe that expanding the number of voters for the HOF would solve the problem of people basing their votes on things other than the candidates’ on-field performance. People make choices of this kind for all kinds of reasons, rational or not. Arguing that increasing the number of voters makes the problem less severe assumes that, as you increase the number, the percentage of people who will base their votes on invalid reasons will decrease. There’s no evidence that I am aware of that this will be true. Increasing the number of voters will mean more folks making their selections for performance-based reasons, but it will also mean more people basing their votes on other factors, as well.

By: CKL

CKL — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:18:24 +0000

I like the idea or ONLY scouts and GMs and maybe coaches voting on this. A large amount of writers have little clue what makes a player great and some of that is their own media bias (if the player is cooperative, human nature says they write more positively about the guy and vice versa) and some isn’t their fault as they have never evaluated players for a living. Why not make sure only the best are in the HOF? Isn’t that the point? The HOF is ProBowl esque due to who votes for it. Sometimes they get it right, but sometimes ballot box stuffing fans get PB guys right too. I don’t vote for the PB because I feel I’m not qualified to figure out who is truly worthy in a lot of the positions. First of all, I don’t watch EVERY game and secondly I’m not a professional scout or GM. I just have my amateur opinions based on the limited amount of games I can watch, like other fans and…writers do.

Good job on this topic MF. I hope you take on the Competition Committee next. Right now that thing looks like the Supreme Court: you’re a member of it until you die.

By: noid25

noid25 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:15:31 +0000

The problem is that sports writers who never played the game are voting for who goes in. Do any players get to vote? At least make it 50% players who are in and 50% sports writers. One top of that rotate the voters in and out so the same people aren’t voting every year!

By: bigjdve

bigjdve — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:15:24 +0000

I think that transparency would be a mistake. However I do believe that the voting pool should be expanded to say 50 writers and 50 members of the hall that would allow a diverse group of people to determine who gets in.

By: purplengold

purplengold — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:11:35 +0000

transparency is good, along with a well-understood set of critera for induction.

By: melikefootball

melikefootball — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:03:35 +0000

Does anyone else get it , C. C. works for ESPN…duh ESPN doesn’t like how the voting is done..Duh what else is new each year especially with every article having Carter the point of view.