Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Question: have seen gripes about the HoF voting process here recently. Would like to have a solid, constructive discussion about that process and if there are problems, what would be the ideal solution?

So I'll start. First, I don't think the process for regular candidates is a problem. The HoF has set a fairly clear sense of what the standards are, and it's not small-hall. And while there have been a couple bad choices who have gotten in this way (will nominate Paul Hornung, Fred Dean, Richard Dent, and Lynn Swann), they seem to have set a basis floor and tend to stick to it. The seniority way of voting people in may not be ideal, but it seems to get results in breaking logjams. Assuming all of John Lynch, Steve Atwater, Brian Dawkins, Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu belong in, electing them one by one in the order they reached finalist stage seems like the most efficient, practical way to get them in. Fussing with "who's more worthy" especially if none are painfully obvious first ballot types strikes me as a good way to gum up the works, and I think that happened with the Carter/Reed/Brown WR logjam. I'm also not convinced that "first ballot" is all that meaningful anyway -- I believe "in is in" is the best way to think. And unless the current panel is replaced with the "real football historians" group I alluded to below, I think they're the best option and should continue unless there's a really compelling reason not to (which I don't see thus far). Players and coaches strike me as being more biased and arguably less informed than the current voters, usually being shameless shills for their teammates; I absolutely don't think they belong at the table.

The biggest problem is with the Seniors, and it has two issues. First, poor candidates are too often being brought to the table. Second, the main body of voters too often votes down the candidates; sometimes, like in Marshall Goldberg's case it's justified, but it happens inexplicably to good choices like Claude Humphrey, and several slots are being wasted this way. The solution as I see it is to have real football historians with knowledge of film study, stats in good context, and honors profiles choose and induct the Seniors. It's efficient and the best hope one has for quality.

It's a little early yet to grade the Contributors process, but we've just had an excellent 1st year and 2nd terrible year on that score. The same approach to the Seniors described above may be needed here also.

Regular players are in their own prospect batch. Keep the current process. Have whatever current media people vote on the regular players. Don't mix in coaches and administrators with the players.

Keep the 2 Senior candidate process. Instead of having the current media involved with this, have the entire process handled by a few old media/historians types. The head old media/historian guy (Ray Didinger?) is the person who selects the 2 Senior candidates for that particular year, and the remaining old media/historians vote on those two players. I would like to think that 85-90% of the Senior candidates would get enshrined, otherwise what is the point? The main thing is that Didinger gets to pick the two candidates, and then its almost perfunctory that both guys get in.

Contributors...all non-players are in this group. It gets murky when guys like Stanfel and LeBeau have player/coach resumes. I don't know what the best way to handle this is, but I do know that its NOT lumping Jim Tunney with Gene Upshaw. Perhaps have both the current media and the old media/historians vote on the Contributors, since many of the old coaches and administrators will have had long 'careers' dating back to previous decades, whereas the regular player candidates are usually more recent.

by bachslunch » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:46 am

"...Question: have seen gripes about the HoF voting process here recently. Would like to have a solid, constructive discussion about that process and if there are problems, what would be the ideal solution?
...I'm also not convinced that "first ballot" is all that meaningful anyway -- I believe 'in is in' is the best way to think. And unless the current panel is replaced with the "real football historians" group I alluded to below, I think they're the best option and should continue unless there's a really compelling reason not to (which I don't see thus far). Players and coaches strike me as being more biased and arguably less informed than the current voters, usually being shameless shills for their teammates; I absolutely don't think they belong at the table.
...The solution as I see it is to have real football historians with knowledge of film study, stats in good context, and honors profiles choose and induct the Seniors. It's efficient and the best hope one has for quality.
...The same approach to the Seniors described above may be needed here also..."


If you have only seen the gripes recently, you do not go back very far. This poster began lurking here around 2004 and joined
in 2007. There has been hof griping since the very first viewing.
So, it is quite likely there is no "ideal sloution" - as you so nicely put it.
There may be, however, a better solution and it would be nice if this thread went in that direction; ergo: the following.

"in is in" - so True. One need only think of the Titanic news flashes. There was little mention of age, class, or nationality.
The lists were simple: Lost - Saved.
That was all that needed to be written.
So, with the hof, "In" is all that matters. The when, why and how is as irrelevant today as it will be 50 years from now.
And... 50 years from now, some people will still be griping. It is what we do. It is our privilege to do so.
After all, we made the world safe for democracy.

"real football historians" - and who is to determine their qualifications? Not necessarily a good choice.
No one is better able to evaluate films than a former coach. Coaches try to determine value by seeing the entire picture -
not the color of the socks, or the number of the player beside him, or the number of snaps during participation.
In the quick blaze of 12 years, there has been but one person here totally qualified for that and he is our former member
tj troup. And, what was Terence: a player and a coach.
So, "Seniors" are probably better evaluated by former coaches and, if the senior committee is effectively selected,
there will be very little favoritism or bias.

"Contributors" - currently, a joke. That is evident with the exclusion of Steve Sabol as the first such enshrinee.
The objective is simply to access eventual large contributions from those families with deep pockets or access to same.

Now... how can the matter be corrected? Or, can it be corrected?

The first suggestion is term of office. These people cannot be allowed to make the same mistakes year after year after year.
Why not a four-year, non-renewable term? Say, appointments or elections every four years by Division.
And who is to make these appointments? The current one per team is not a bad means - perhaps modified in that the selection must be nominated by the media with issued credentials for access to that particular team.
This would give those media outlets an opportunity to "sell" their nominees to the fan base and some teams probably listen
to their fans. At least they all claim to be aware of them.

The league should be permitted a voter, as should the players' association.

The senior committee could consist of four former coaches - also with 4-year terms - and chaired by the players' association representative.

Nothing is perfect so there are, no doubt, one or two minor flaws here. that is why we have this forum. Is it not?

Been enjoying reading what you and Bryan have to say on the matter.

oldecapecod11 wrote:If you have only seen the gripes recently, you do not go back very far. This poster began lurking here around 2004 and joined
in 2007. There has been hof griping since the very first viewing.

Oh, I've seen griping dating back quite a ways about this, including here. But seeing the latest HoF threads got me thinking now was a good time to start the conversation.

oldecapecod11 wrote:So, it is quite likely there is no "ideal solution" - as you so nicely put it.
There may be, however, a better solution and it would be nice if this thread went in that direction; ergo: the following.

Entirely true. But one never knows what may come up when the subject is raised. And I'm especially interested to see what folks with gripes think are real, workable solutions if they think the current ones stink.

oldecapecod11 wrote:"real football historians" - and who is to determine their qualifications? Not necessarily a good choice.
No one is better able to evaluate films than a former coach. Coaches try to determine value by seeing the entire picture -
not the color of the socks, or the number of the player beside him, or the number of snaps during participation.
In the quick blaze of 12 years, there has been but one person here totally qualified for that and he is our former member
tj troup. And, what was Terence: a player and a coach.
So, "Seniors" are probably better evaluated by former coaches and, if the senior committee is effectively selected,
there will be very little favoritism or bias.

I guess the question is what makes a "real football historian?" No question some coaches could be great in that regard, such as Coach Troup. But I'm more concerned about, say, a panel that would consist of Marv Levy, Bill Belichick, Don Shula, Marty Schottenheimer, and Bill Cowher. Too much bias potential there for me. There are people here in this forum who might fit the bill well such as John Turney, Chase Stuart, Ken Crippen, Rupert Patrick, Ralph Hickok, and Matt Reaser among them. And if elected, I will serve.

The solution as I see it is to have real football historians with knowledge of film study, stats in good context, and honors profiles choose and induct the Seniors.

I agree with this completely. Here's another thought... Split the two nominees into one who's career ended >25 years ago and another who's career ended >50 years ago. A "super-senior" nominee. It would force the Wisterts and Slaters to get consideration.

“Contributors” - currently, a joke. That is evident with the exclusion of Steve Sabol as the first such enshrinee.

I agree with this completely. It seems like there's such a limited pool in this category it might get tapped out in a few decades and then what? A few worthy GMs and owners, maybe a referee or two, and then we'll see "unworthy" nominees who didn't get voted in the first or second time get nominated over and over until they finally get voted in. Much like what happened with Stanfel in my opinion.

bachslunch wrote:
And I'm especially interested to see what folks with gripes think are real, workable solutions if they think the current ones stink.

Other than disbanding the farce, I for one don't have other solutions. Never been a big believer in the "don't come to me with problems unless you have a solution" slogan so prevalent in the corporate world today. If someone knocks on my door when it's raining and points out a hole in my roof that I didn't know was there am I going to say, "Get lost unless you can tell me how to fix it"?

No. I'm going to say, "Didn't know that. Thanks buddy, I'll take it from here."

But if you're looking for alternate options, Reaser posted a pretty good idea yesterday afternoon. Then the post mysteriously disappeared.

mwald wrote:Reaser posted a pretty good idea yesterday afternoon. Then the post mysteriously disappeared.

I was at work and hit submit before I finished my thought - edit button wasn't loading so deleted it and was going to come back to it later ... obviously didn't.

Regardless, what I had said:

I would have been fine with a "Pro Football Museum" that had a "Champions Room" dedicated to and that placed additional emphasis on each TEAM that has won a championship. As opposed to a room with busts that places additional emphasis on individuals. The latter inherently goes against what football is.

Though that's not what we have so the goal should be to have a process as good as possible that honors the 'correct' (whatever one views as correct, all different opinions) individuals. I almost think it's a "too late now" situation and view the PFHOF much like I view baseball records (in a sport where stats actually matter) that were set in the PED era: ruined the past, present and future.

In other words I care less about the PFHOF as each day passes.

You can't take anyone out of the PFHOF (so the bar is already lowered in a way where "if Player A is in then anyone better than him is above the line=should be HOF) and the process doesn't allow for a quick solution to fix the errors of individuals forgotten and/or not in.

A few other thoughts:

"Players are biased" - and HOF voters are not? (see: King votes for Dungy, voter doesn't vote for player because player wasn't nice to him, voter votes for player from team he covers, voter votes for player because he's 'presenting' him, and numerous other reasons of bias) ...

"Short career" - No one mentioned it in this thread, but it's one of the major problems in my opinion. Depending on when/what numbers you use, the average NFL career length is roughly 3 to 3.5 years. So a "short career" would be less than that. An average career would be 3-4 seasons, 5 seasons would be above average, 6-7 seasons would be TWICE as long as the average career length. Defies logic to see a fairly clear HOF level player and then go: "oh, he only played (twice as long as the average career length) 7 years so his career was too short." The longest careers on average belong to kickers, long snappers and punters. If "seasons played" is the great HOF level accomplishment it's made it out to be then there should be a lot more kickers and punters in, and get Trey Junkin in the HOF, now!

"Compiled stats" - Football isn't baseball. Everyone posting in the thread, so far, is likely aware of my view so don't need to type a paragraph.

The thread topic is essentially asking for proposals. Other than museum/champions, here's one (admittedly haven't put much thought into it, though I've suggested similar before):

50 HOF voters:

- 5 GM/Scouts: Ron Wolf (we know he sits around studying film from the 40's/50's, knows every era of pro football), 100's of former NFL scouts out there that worked for multiple teams, pick 2-3 and another retired GM.

- 5 Coaches: Head or assistant, try to split offensive and defensive minded, with a 'teams guy. Can find ones that have been retired long enough as to not have a bias when it comes to modern players.

- 5 Players: Not sure why everyone thinks when players are suggested that it has to be a HOF player with bias. "If you pick Faulk then Warner, Holt and Bruce will be elected next year!" ... Pick 2 offensive guys, 2 defensive guys, one career ST'er. Can be HOF'ers (especially ones that have been retired 25 years to mitigate even the perception of bias), or career backups that played for multiple teams, high football IQ and would want to do it. (Ken Dorsey is very football smart, he was always going to be a coach after he was done playing but someone like him, would work.)

Also on this note. Fouts and Lofton are seemingly being groomed to have a vote as soon as next year. Fouts is fine but I cringe thinking about the fallout if he's a voter and Coryell then gets elected. Lofton I believe voted for James Carpenter as an all-pro a couple years back. That would disqualify him from voting on anything, at least in 'my' proposal.

- 5 Historians: Coach Troup. PFRA President (currently Ken, gives a natural term length, though obviously can be re-elected), 3 other people that pass the test (e.g. Have you seen Al Wistert on film? Do you even know who Al Wistert is?)

- 5 Media: PFWA President (natural rotation) and 4 other media members (of course I would lean towards those in the media that are former players/coaches/scouts) but sure, you guys can have your Peter King.

- 25 "At-Large" voters: Have an application process. I know my question one offends people for some reason but Q1: "Have you ever played or coached football?" (at a reasonably level, lets say at least high school). Question 2 and 3 would go back to do you know who Al Wistert is? Have you seen him play? etc (using Wistert as random example, obviously)... A massive interview process where people have to meet minimum credentials: Know football (football, on the field), know football history, and so on.

I'm not a, "hey, I remember his name and he was good but not great, he's a HOF'er!", type person. So I would probably lower the players down to 3 elected per year. With 1 contributor and 1 senior. Classes of 5.

I very much like what Bryan said about separating players, they 100% should be in their own category. "Contributor" (can be re-named if needed) definitely should be the "everyone else" slot. (Personally I'm not big on owners and such in the HOF but trying to be realistic with what the HOF already is) ...

For the senior, I would have only the 5 historians nominate the player to be voted on. I may not even have all 50 voters vote yes/no, just keep it a historians and maybe add five or so select people from the other categories of voters: e.g. a Ron Wolf.

Reaser wrote: - 25 "At-Large" voters: Have an application process. Question 2 and 3 would go back to do you know who Al Wistert is? Have you seen him play? etc (using Wistert as random example, obviously)...

Kind of a trick question...Albert Wistert was always confused with his brother Alvin Wistert, as both were All-American tackles at Michigan. Perfect for winnowing out the application process, though. I like it.

Reaser wrote:- 5 GM/Scouts: Ron Wolf (we know he sits around studying film from the 40's/50's, knows every era of pro football), 100's of former NFL scouts out there that worked for multiple teams, pick 2-3 and another retired GM.

Wolf once said he'd be happy if he could hit .333 in the draft, meaning one of three players he picked would be a direct hit. That's a Hall of Famer himself talking, a long time member of the NFL. Not a sportswriter. Not a historian. Not a stat cruncher.

If he views the whole thing as little more than a crap shoot, it makes it easier to understand why I view "expertise" in this area as an oxymoron.

Bryan wrote:Kind of a trick question...Albert Wistert was always confused with his brother Alvin Wistert, as both were All-American tackles at Michigan. Perfect for winnowing out the application process, though. I like it.

Excellent.