On the same evening that the Heisman Trophy is being awarded, the Associated Press points out that former Heisman winner O.J. Simpson won’t be losing many of his football accolades after being convicted of felony charges and sentenced to at least nine years in prison.
For our purposes, the only award that matters is Simpson’s membership in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and the AP points out that Simpson’s status in Canton won’t be affected.
But should it be? We took a straw poll recently of several Hall of Fame voters, and the voters with whom we spoke agree with the position that off-field antics, during or after a player’s career and/or induction, do not and should not matter.
Peter King of Sports Illustrated, NBC, Sirius NFL Radio, and probably a few other things we’re forgetting, was unequivocal. “I am totally opposed to removing O.J. from Canton,” King said. “When we vote on players for the Hall of Fame, we have a clear mandate: Only what happens between the white lines counts. Citizenship, either during his career or 20 years after it, doesn’t matter. And I don’t think it should.”
Another voter, who asked to remain nameless, echoed King’s bottom-line position, but also suggested that a different outcome to Simpson’s prior criminal trial might have caused the unnamed voter to support kicking Simpson out. “If he had been convicted of what we all assume he did and someone moved to change the by-laws, I’d be for it,” the unnamed voter said.
Nancy Gay of the San Francisco Chronicle also said that Simpson should stay put. “He is recognized by the Pro Football Hall of Fame for his on-field achievements and excellence,” she said. “His off-field activities are separate. That’s been my stance when I consider any candidate, and the Hall encourages selectors to consider a player’s on-field credentials only.”
Ditto for John Czarnecki of FOX. “Off-the-field incidents are never considered,” Czarnecki said. “Some selectors may have personal views, but that should never impact the objectivity regarding one’s football-playing ability. O.J. was one hell of a runner.”
Finally, Howard Balzer of the Sports Xchange echoed the views of the others. “[Simpson] was enshrined based on his performance as a player, and nothing that happens later in life changes that. Off-field conduct that is known prior to being selected is not supposed to be considered and I agree with that.”
In this case, the fact that Simpson’s transgressions came after his career — and after his induction — makes it easier for the voters to cling to the Hall of Fame’s view that only on-field performance matters. But if Simpson had (allegedly) killed his ex-wife and her friend during his playing career or after retiring but before entering the Hall, we suspect that he would have been waiting a while before ever getting in.
Frankly, we disagree with the notion that off-field conduct shouldn’t matter. Virtually every kid who passes through the place from now until the doors are closed will be told about O.J. Simpson, the guy who butchered two people and who somehow beat the rap and later went to jail for something that was made to seem a lot worse than it really was.
Is that the impression the folks who run the place want first-time visitors to come away with? That they saw the bronze head of the guy who nearly decapitated the mother of two of his children?
At a time when we’re repeatedly hearing that playing in the NFL is a privilege and not a right, we think that the folks responsible for the venue that honors the best of those who exercised said privilege should change the rules to keep out — and if necessary throw out — men whose presence would bring shame to the Hall of Fame.