We’ve had some spirited debates over the past couple years about who should and shouldn’t be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, many of them relating to senior nominees who in some cases were surprisingly overlooked years ago.
Sports Illustrated’s Peter King devoted a good chunk of his Monday Morning Quarterback today to finding a way to get more “contributors” to the game enshrined in Canton, Ohio as well. He makes a compelling case that many non-players deserve to be enshrined. I think he’s probably right — I particularly agree with the case he made for the Ed Sabol, who founded NFL Films.
I’m not sure, however, if the three alternatives he proposes for making the change to ensure more contributor honorees make the most sense to me (though at first glance I don’t have an obviously better answer, either).
Stolen directly from his column, King’s three proposed options include:
1. Take one of the two Seniors slots and give it annually to a non-head coaching contributor to the game, which wouldn’t mean a contributor wouldn’t get in every year, but rather that one contributor’s case would be heard every year.
2. Take one of the two Seniors slots every other year and give it annually to a contributor.
3. Take the two non-modern-era-candidate slots and make them fit for all other candidates — seniors, scouts, etc.
I admit, I’m not an expert on how the voters would go about changing the process. I do know that the limit on modern era candidates is five and the limit on senior committee candidates is two, for a maximum of seven inductees to the Hall in any given year. To me, as the NFL Hall of Fame prepares to expand its physical footprint anyway, it seems like you could simply add one more slot each year for a “contributor” and make the maximum number of entrants each year eight – with no requirement that number be voted in, of course.
But as I said, I don’t know for sure what the procedure is for making a change like this. So, I’m asking our readers for thoughts. Should more contributors be recognized? If so, how would you suggest changing the voting process? If not, why?
And while you’re sharing your thoughts on this topic I’ll see if I can’t find some clarity to the process under which such a change to the voting could be made.
Loading ...
Yes, like Peter King, I think more contributors should be inducted into the HoF. But I also think contributors/coaches should have their own separate election process, aside from Seniors and regular nominees.
Perhaps there should be one or two people at most per year considered in such a separate election — and like everyone else, they would have to reach the percentage threshold required.
I have no problem with contributors going in. After all it’s all about pro football in all its glory, not just about the players. I’m not sure why he didn’t go for the obvious solution – namely create a new slot and bring the maximum to eight.
A separate slot for contributors has been in my head for a couple of years now, and bachslunch’s idea of including coaches as well makes sense.
There are a number of players who have been waiting for a long time and I think the voters want to get a lot of them in as well as all the deserving players coming up for eligibility. If the NFL expands it’ll only become harder to get in and contributors are going to be overlooked in favour of players.
Contributors seem to make it to the semifinal list (I think there are 6 there including Don Coryell), but get stuck. This in turn creates a bottleneck for the players. So, yes, a new route to elect a contributor or coach is needed. Whom can we petition to try and get this changed?
We can write a letter to the Hall of Fame itself, I think. But, I agree with the whole idea.
Yes we need select contributors in the HOF. I’d take Curt Gowdy first, “God rest his soul” He’s my pick over Jim Nance and Joe Buck as my play by play man every Sunday afternoon of the week for the rest of my life. LOL!! It’s just something about his everyman type of voice.
IMO, one of the reasons 1974 Dolphin’s Playoff loss to the Raiders 26-28 is often referred to a one of the greatest is because Gowdy did the game just right. As a Dolphin fan how great can a game be when your missing Csonka and Kiick? Still I will conceed that it was. Know I believe it was the way Gowdy explained the game as it went along as being the end of the Dolphin era (five year supremecy) which turned out to be fact along with the backdrop (year-long turmoil) of losing Csonka, Kiick and Warfield to the new WFL. Along with all of their injuries Gowdy grasped the importance of what was going on. That plus an unbelievable comeback made it a great game. Why is it that so many of these great games that are referred to are Dolphin losses ? Earl Campbell MNF Luv U Blue, Dolphin vs Chargers Playoff loss 41-38. I guess it’s good to be mentioned. LOL. I guess it is made up for by the number of times the 1985 Bears loss to the Fins is mentioned preventing their perfect season. That’s one of my last good memories as a Dolphin fan. Too many losses to the Bills. errr! Now we’ve turned into the Houston Texans
Back to topic, as usual Bachslunch makes sense. As long it doesn’t slow down Johnny Robinson from making it to the Hall I’ll be for it. :)