Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Only because I'm curious... Now with Slater and Speedie in the HOF, will the PFRA replace those two on the list with two others, along with Wistert and Dilweg? If so, how would they go about being agreed upon and selected?

Lewellen and Emerson seem like easy choices to bring it back to 4 in my opinion.

There have been preliminary discussions, but no decision has been made. One argument is that if we were to add more, does it dilute the chances of Dilweg and Wistert? Another argument is to add two more in order to educate the voters on more players (our mission is education). Too many will dilute the effectiveness.

Previously, it was done through the HOVG committee. We would have to look at the process to see if it would be better to model it after the HOVG process, which includes the membership.

I will discuss it with Andy Piascik the next time I talk to him. I would also have to discuss it with the board of directors.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Lewellen and Emerson seem like easy choices to bring it back to 4 in my opinion.

Good choices. Would Lewellen dilute Dilweg's chances and vice versa?

I'm open to whatever the Board of Directors decides.

As far as candidates, Dick Barwegan would be my first choice. Someone e-mailed me recently about Lou Rymkus. While I would rate Ox Emerson a little higher than Rymkus based just on what they did as players, Rymkus also has the 1960 AFL championship as a head coach on his resume. Tough call.

Ken Crippen wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Lewellen and Emerson seem like easy choices to bring it back to 4 in my opinion.

Good choices. Would Lewellen dilute Dilweg's chances and vice versa?

I wouldn't say dilute. If our mission as an organization is to educate, why do we endorse just four? I think we should list all the candidates who we feel are pro football hall of famers. Then, write up and analyze the players to help spread the message and make the stance/information available. Like what we have done for Dilweg and Wistert. If the HOVG committee should do this, let's make it happen.

sluggermatt15 wrote:I wouldn't say dilute. If our mission as an organization is to educate, why do we endorse just four?.

Do you think PFHOF voters are more likely to respond to information sheets of 2-4 players or do you think they're going to sift through multiple pages of information on 10-30 players?

It's not just a list of players we (PFRA) think should be in the PFHOF.

Endorsement is different from "here's everyone who should be in that you haven't put in yet."

That's why less in more, so to speak.

Reaser wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:I wouldn't say dilute. If our mission as an organization is to educate, why do we endorse just four?.

Do you think PFHOF voters are more likely to respond to information sheets of 2-4 players or do you think they're going to sift through multiple pages of information on 10-30 players?

It's not just a list of players we (PFRA) think should be in the PFHOF.

Endorsement is different from "here's everyone who should be in that you haven't put in yet."

That's why less in more, so to speak.

What is wrong with 3-5 candidates who, as an organization, we decide based on consensus?

sluggermatt15 wrote:What is wrong with 3-5 candidates who, as an organization, we decide based on consensus?

Nothing, since that's essentially what we already did with four. I was responding to you saying you think we should list "all" candidates -- which would be a list larger than "3-5", obviously.

Still hard to believe Lewellen hasnt been elected. Maybe Dilweg cancels him out but 51 TDs in the 30s ?
Not to mention possibly the first great or at least most successful punter of that era ?