Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

If the results are unsatisfactory, change the rules.

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.

Thanks Andy - appreciate the explanation.

Just to play devil's advocate, if someone really had a low vote percentage, then rather than ask the question "Do we really want someone to get in with 5%-10%?", Shouldn't we ask the question "Is it better to have a smaller class in a year where not enough players get a high percentage?"

The funny thing is, changing it would probably be like adding a crowbar to the already locked door on super seniors, but at the same time I really don't think voting for players we are barely familiar with and/or don't believe deserve a vote is better. As much as I'd like to see a HOVG with players like Latone, Parratt, etc. even I don't want them in because folks were having trouble with their 9th and 10th choices. (As I mentioned, I'd rather see a special super senior slot, but that has already been discussed)

My thought about the ranking was for someone who really feels they see only 7 deserving players, they shouldn't feel bad about voting for anyone on the last few positions because it's not worth much anyway. Every voter would have 55 points. The 1st player chosen gets 10, the 5th player chosen gets 6, by the time you get to 9, you are only throwing that player 2 points anyway, so may as well vote.

I know my case is an outlier, but I feel I'm reasonably knowledgeable about early pro football history through around the late 50s, and after that, not so much, so in all the years I've voted, given the options with so many players from subsequent years, its tough for me to intelligently get to 10. The other way that could be solved besides me voting for less than 10 is if there were discussions on every nominee, but it doesn't seem like there is enough interest in that.

No, I don't think your question is a better one. Our minimum of seven is pretty low and it is something that has been discussed at great length by the Committee over many years, with a fair amount of different opinions. Bob Carroll for one strongly disagreed when we made the change to 7/10; he believed we should elect ten every year no matter what. The HOF elects about 4-6 each year and the HOVG sometimes elects as few as seven, which basically means that we're saying there are only 11-13 players in pro football at a given time who were "very good" or better, which he thought was way too few.

I agreed with the majority that we should change it from an automatic 10 to 7/10 as a way to make the HOVG more exclusive. But to go lower than that would be a mistake, I think. Would we really want a HOVG class of only 3-4? I wouldn't.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:This is the first year I didn't vote. I'll keep participating on the nomination side which is the fun part to me. As I've posted before, the trend in the data shows super senior candidates have virtually no chance of getting in which takes the fun out of voting for me.

Well, could you not just do it anyway even if it is excruciating? I have voted for guys in all eras. Maybe Latone would have gotten in this year if you voted. I am not in the committee so I don't know what the actual vote totals are but it is actually possible that you not voting has kept Latone out.

One thing to consider is that your vote carries weight. Not 1 of 1,000,000 or 1 of 100,000 or 1 of 10,000 or 1 of 1,000, or even 1 of a couple hundred. Obviously, with the relatively small number of voters, your vote "counts" more.

I think its going to be a tough trend to reverse. By my count, last 11 elections, there were 91 players and coaches inducted, but just 4 who began their careers prior to 1950. I still feel I have a role on the awareness side, but I was burnt out on the repetitiveness of the results.

I do not vote every year, though I did this year. I do think the number of votes you make should be fixed. Don't want a large/small HOVG debate. Just make a decision and that's what voters need to turn in.

Even baseball HOF has gone more towards forcing the voters to elect people through various methods.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I think its going to be a tough trend to reverse. By my count, last 11 elections, there were 91 players and coaches inducted, but just 4 who began their careers prior to 1950. I still feel I have a role on the awareness side, but I was burnt out on the repetitiveness of the results.

Well, you might need to convince folks that pre-1950s players belong. How about submitting,if you aren't already, articles to the CC about them? Or biographies for the Biography Committee? That will help raise awareness.

Andy Piascik wrote:No, I don't think your question is a better one. Our minimum of seven is pretty low and it is something that has been discussed at great length by the Committee over many years, with a fair amount of different opinions. Bob Carroll for one strongly disagreed when we made the change to 7/10; he believed we should elect ten every year no matter what. The HOF elects about 4-6 each year and the HOVG sometimes elects as few as seven, which basically means that we're saying there are only 11-13 players in pro football at a given time who were "very good" or better, which he thought was way too few.

I agreed with the majority that we should change it from an automatic 10 to 7/10 as a way to make the HOVG more exclusive. But to go lower than that would be a mistake, I think. Would we really want a HOVG class of only 3-4? I wouldn't.

You're right. Especially because there are newly eligible very good players every year. Decreasing the number of electees only expands the pool of candidates and increases the difficulty of players getting in.

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