2020 Hall of Very Good Election Results

[rhickok1109]

If we must vote for 10 nominees, I would suggest allowing voters to rank their votes from 1 to 10. Then, instead of merely counting votes, you'd have to assign points to each vote, e.g., 10 points for each first-place vote, and so on down the line.

[rhickok1109]

We elect 7-10 each hear with a 55% threshold. If fewer than seven are listed on 55% of ballots, the class is the seven highest vote-getters. If more than ten receive 55%, only the top ten vote-getters are elected. We've not yet had a year where fewer than seven or more than ten got 55% of the vote. The gap between the last electee and the first non-electee is always quite small, almost always fewer than five votes.

The Committee is always open to improving the system, John. Maybe you could explain more about your proposal using an example or two while also thinking through any drawbacks your proposal might contain.

We should also try to hone in on how may people choose to not participate for particular reasons. I'm not sure we should do much to change the system if only one person has a particular complaint. Ralph refuses to vote for the reasons he stated. In all the years of the HOVG, he is the only person I know of who refuses to participate for that reason. Chris also has questions about the 10-vote mandate but still participates. John will not vote because he thinks PFRA members are overlooking pre-1930 candidates but will continue to submit nominations. I probably hear from more people about these issues than anyone and John is the first person I know of to decide to no longer vote because he believes pre-1930 candidates are being shortchanged.

People should seriously consider that virtually every proposed change has adverse consequences. If we do away with the 10-vote mandate and allow people to vote for whatever number they want from 1 to 10, we will definitely get results where candidates will get elected with 5% or 10% of the vote and possibly lower. It's also probably inevitable that we would end up in some years with a majority of the electees getting in with pathetically low vote percentages. So while it's easy to refuse to participate because one doesn't like this or that, a serious examination of the repercussions of one's argument may lead to seeing that such an argument leads to an alternative that is far worse than the status quo.

For Ralph or anyone else who refuses to vote because they don't like the 10-vote mandate, perhaps they can say whether they prefer a system where electees get in with 5%-10% of the vote, which in my opinion will be the inevitable result of doing away with it. I personally think that would seriously discredit the HOVG; others may not think so. If you agree it would be a problem, then perhaps the more constructive thing to do rather than simply not participating would be to propose a workable alternative.

It seems to me that 55% is a ridiculously low threshold.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Again, the HOVG is a consensus of opinions. Clearly not everyone thinks the same, but they agree enough to elect players every year.

Right, but the players getting elected are consistently from the same time period. My point is that as an historical organization, this is something that should be considered. Why so few pre-NFL players? If the answer is simply that the majority of members aren't interested in that time period, then that isn't a very satisfying one to me. Some people are both interested in early eras and continue to research them. To me the goal of any "Hall" should be to get the most deserving players in. The pro football HOF could have taken the same view and patted themselves on the back and said "hey, we are doing great, we elect players every year." But, they have a senior committee and they even tried to address the issue (not well) with the centennial class. I don't follow baseball, but I believe they have special committees as well.

I've brought up the idea of a super senior committee analogous to the pfHOF's senior committee in the past, but it didn't get any support. Another option I'd prefer would be to keep the nomination process, let the committee vet the nominees as they do now and pull the class out of a hat. Perhaps it could be made a little better if the committee placed the finalists into two tiers. Any first tier finalists could have their names thrown into the hat twice and the 2nd tier candidates just once. Not to get political, but while I do feel democratic voting is the best way to run a country, that doesn't translate into concluding that it's also the best way to choose a HOVG. The current process completely marginalizes those with an interest and knowledge of earlier time periods simply because the majority is more interested in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.

[Bryan]

I think we should set up the HOVG as an anarcho-syndicalist commune. PFRA members take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-election, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major…


Otherwise, I like Ralph's idea...make the ballot more like a Heisman ballot.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I think we should set up the HOVG as an anarcho-syndicalist commune. PFRA members take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-election, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major…

It doesn't have to be complicated to achieve an improvement. If you read the thread, I actually mentioned the 1-10 ranking thing before Ralph (the sum of the numbers is 55 so each voter gets that many points). I think that improvement would make people feel better about voting because I would assume when it gets down to the last few spots, folks don't have the same conviction that they did about their first few choices and may even choose the last few without much thought. But, I don't have any data, so no way to support this. Maybe everyone rigorously researches all 10 players. The question could be answered with a poll/survey.

In terms of getting a better distribution of players across eras, it seems that's not something there is an interest in, which is fine, but I disagree with the implication that it has to be complicated. There could easily be two pools to vote on: pre-WWII and post-WWII. Obviously since the pre-WWII pool doesn't grow, you'd maybe only choose one player from it annually or even every other year.

Bob Carroll's method of chosing players out of a hat would also improve the distribution and is simple, but I suspect the randomness is unappealing to many. I doubt Glenn Presnell and others get in without the hat method though.

As long as we also don't start voting down Coffin Corner articles that the majority of people aren't interested in, I still prefer to remain a PFRA member regardless of the HOVG process. It's mostly disappointing because I see the HOVG going down the same path as the HOF. The HOF at least I get - players from defunct teams don't generate merchandise sales is one easy explanation among others.

[Andy Piascik]

It seems to me that 55% is a ridiculously low threshold.

The result of raising it even a small amount, as I think should be obvious, would be ridiculously low class sizes.

[sluggermatt15]

Again, the HOVG is a consensus of opinions. Clearly not everyone thinks the same, but they agree enough to elect players every year.

Right, but the players getting elected are consistently from the same time period. My point is that as an historical organization, this is something that should be considered. Why so few pre-NFL players? If the answer is simply that the majority of members aren't interested in that time period, then that isn't a very satisfying one to me. Some people are both interested in early eras and continue to research them. To me the goal of any "Hall" should be to get the most deserving players in. The pro football HOF could have taken the same view and patted themselves on the back and said "hey, we are doing great, we elect players every year." But, they have a senior committee and they even tried to address the issue (not well) with the centennial class. I don't follow baseball, but I believe they have special committees as well.

I've brought up the idea of a super senior committee analogous to the pfHOF's senior committee in the past, but it didn't get any support. Another option I'd prefer would be to keep the nomination process, let the committee vet the nominees as they do now and pull the class out of a hat. Perhaps it could be made a little better if the committee placed the finalists into two tiers. Any first tier finalists could have their names thrown into the hat twice and the 2nd tier candidates just once. Not to get political, but while I do feel democratic voting is the best way to run a country, that doesn't translate into concluding that it's also the best way to choose a HOVG. The current process completely marginalizes those with an interest and knowledge of earlier time periods simply because the majority is more interested in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.

This comes down to the mentality of the voters. They need to understand that pre-1950 players are viable candidates as well. What's the best way? Inform them and emphasize their significance to the game.

Andy, Jay and I have discussed what you're suggesting. I do not think it makes a ton of sense to create special committees just to get super senior players into the HOVG. The drive and recognition needs to come from the voters. They have to understand and voice that the players belong. Trust me, you are not the only member who feels this way.

[TanksAndSpartans]

This comes down to the mentality of the voters. They need to understand that pre-1950 players are viable candidates as well. What's the best way? Inform them and emphasize their significance to the game.

Andy, Jay and I have discussed what you're suggesting. I do not think it makes a ton of sense to create special committees just to get super senior players into the HOVG. The drive and recognition needs to come from the voters. They have to understand and voice that the players belong. Trust me, you are not the only member who feels this way.

Thanks @sluggermatt15. I definitely appreciate that you guys discussed it.

I personally don't see anything changing. Maybe Latone gets in this decade, but there are a lot of solid pre-war candidates not named Latone. I posted one today. I'll keep posting them. We'll find out in 2030.

[JeffreyMiller]

If you don't like the result, change the rules.

[Andy Piascik]

The last thing we should do is change the rules because one person doesn't like the results.