Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Zero26, I think you may have misunderstood my point about the Centennial Committee. Some of the finalists who weren't elected are certainly worthy of reconsideration and some are definitely worthy of being elected, but I would hate to see the Senior Committee start by automatically grandfathering in those from the final 20 who weren't elected. Actually, they've already done some of that, unfortunately, with the subsequent elections of Pearson and Branch.

Among the ten elected that year, the Centennial Committee definitely got some right. They also got a whole bunch very wrong. But of the eight finalists who remain on the outside looking in, some are worthy and some are not. That is why it's incumbent upon both the Senior Committee and the overall Selection Committee to do their due diligence. There are far more deserving candidates who didn't even make it to the final 20.

There's nothing we can do about Covert, Sprinkle, Carmichael, etc., being in the HOF. But the Committee can learn from those mistakes and avoid similar ones going forward. Whether it happens is a big question mark. At least we no longer have a HOF President aggressively pushing for every single member of the all-1970s team to get inducted.

But we should not assume for one minute that because there will be nine Senior finalists in the next three years, that they will automatically get it right. There's too much of a negative track record.

Andy Piascik wrote:Zero26, I think you may have misunderstood my point about the Centennial Committee. Some of the finalists who weren't elected are certainly worthy of reconsideration and some are definitely worthy of being elected, but I would hate to see the Senior Committee start by automatically grandfathering in those from the final 20 who weren't elected. Actually, they've already done some of that, unfortunately, with the subsequent elections of Pearson and Branch.

Among the ten elected that year, the Centennial Committee definitely got some right. They also got a whole bunch very wrong. But of the eight finalists who remain on the outside looking in, some are worthy and some are not. That is why it's incumbent upon both the Senior Committee and the overall Selection Committee to do their due diligence. There are far more deserving candidates who didn't even make it to the final 20.

There's nothing we can do about Covert, Sprinkle, Carmichael, etc., being in the HOF. But the Committee can learn from those mistakes and avoid similar ones going forward. Whether it happens is a big question mark. At least we no longer have a HOF President aggressively pushing for every single member of the all-1970s team to get inducted.

But we should not assume for one minute that because there will be nine Senior finalists in the next three years, that they will automatically get it right. There's too much of a negative track record.

The point I was getting into was the centennial proving they are willing to look at the earlier eras with more space not that I agreed with the decisions or would be happy with them just starting from the centennial runner ups(I would like Isbell though). We agree there were more deserving candidates not in the final 20 and that some of the nominees deserved to be in the Hall. We seem to disagree with the specifics(I was happy with the Pearson and Branch picks and while they'd have been closer to the bottom of my list than the top Sprinkle and Carmichael were picks I could agree with)but I was upset with the choices of the nominees as well.

Yeah the old HOF president always started this conversation with "x number of all decade players aren't in". It's the same as the centennial of course some of them should be in. But there's a lot of all decade players who shouldn't be in the hall and there's a lot of players who aren't on all decade teams who should be. We'll see what happens i'm trying my best to be optimistic.

Sorry Andy, Ken and John ... A horrible day for super-seniors players ...

Brian wolf wrote:Sorry Andy, Ken and John ... A horrible day for super-seniors players ...

Small wins. As you mention, Dilweg is still alive. So is Cecil Isbell. Maybe next year it will be Lewellen.

If Dilweg gets in, there's hope for Lewellen but Sharpe and Isbell could definitely take votes away and at least one of the two should get in if not both super-seniors ...

Hoping its Dilweg, Howley and Gradishar, in 2023

Brian wolf wrote:Sorry Andy, Ken and John ... A horrible day for super-seniors players ...

Yes and No.

In a way there is less competition...maybe one will actually make it in...maybe if there were more maybe
they just get lost in the wash.

To me, it is a wait-and-see. If Dilweg gets in (my preference) then it will be a good day in the long run

I think it's a total trainwreck. At least 15 and probably more like 18 of the 25 don't belong anywhere near the Hall of Fame. Making things worse is that a template has been established where it's likely that all of the 25, minus whoever gets elected, will get rolled over to 2024 and 2025. Of all the old-timers they could have picked, how in the world do they think Isbell is more deserving than Wistert, Barwegen, Emerson, Rymkus and some others? And these guys actually believe Taylor, Walls, Hayes and a bunch of others are more deserving than those four plus Patton, Jim Ray Smith, Shofner and lord knows how many more? That's absurd in the extreme.

Yes, it would be terrific if Dilweg, Gradishar and Howley get elected. But overall, this is a black eye for the HOF and a complete embarrassment for the Senior Committee.

Andy Piascik wrote:I think it's a total trainwreck. At least 15 and probably more like 18 of the 25 don't belong anywhere near the Hall of Fame. Making things worse is that a template has been established where it's likely that all of the 25, minus whoever gets elected, will get rolled over to 2024 and 2025. Of all the old-timers they could have picked, how in the world do they think Isbell is more deserving than Wistert, Barwegen, Emerson, Rymkus and some others? And these guys actually believe Taylor, Walls, Hayes and a bunch of others are more deserving than those four plus Patton, Jim Ray Smith, Shofner and lord knows how many more? That's absurd in the extreme.

Yes, it would be terrific if Dilweg, Gradishar and Howley get elected. But overall, this is a black eye for the HOF and a complete embarrassment for the Senior Committee.

This pretty much sums up how I feel too. I would throw in Roger Craig and say 3/4 of Craig, Dilweg, Gradishar and Howley would be a good result - a great result really. But the list is pretty terrible. I mentioned on another board that it looks more like the result of a fan vote to me than what it actually is. As far as roll over goes, they didn't roll over the good centennial class nominees who didn't get in, so who knows, right?

John, I think you're 100% right, it looks like a fan vote and not like something we would hope for from people who are supposed to dedicate time to really excavating who the best candidates are. And I hope you're right that they don't roll over the same candidates for the next two years. The reason I'm fearful they will is that the Senior Selection Committee is made up of the same people from year to year, whereas the Centennial Committee was a one-shot deal made up of a different group of people (though I think one or two members of the Senior Committee were part of it). So it would be natural that the Senior Committee would have a different collective opinion than the Centennial Committee. Since the Senior Committee has determined that these are the 25 best Seniors, as mind-boggling as that is, it seems they would stick with the same group and only add a few new candidates as those from the original 25 get elected.

I'm not enthusiastic about Craig like you. In my opinion, Craig, Clayton, Hayes, Hinton, Isbell, Jacoby, Johnson, Kenn, Klecko, Marshall, Matthews, Morgan, Nobis, Riley, Taylor and Walls don't belong anywhere near the HOF. I don't really support Anderson, Baughan, Kuechenberg, Kunz or Sharpe either because there are so many freaking other Seniors who are much more qualified, but I would elevate them over the others.

The only three definitely-should-be Hall of Famers of the 25 are Dilweg, Gradishar and Howley. I like Meador as well but there are other Seniors who rate higher.

Andy Piascik wrote:John, I think you're 100% right, it looks like a fan vote and not like something we would hope for from people who are supposed to dedicate time to really excavating who the best candidates are. And I hope you're right that they don't roll over the same candidates for the next two years. The reason I'm fearful they will is that the Senior Selection Committee is made up of the same people from year to year, whereas the Centennial Committee was a one-shot deal made up of a different group of people (though I think one or two members of the Senior Committee were part of it). So it would be natural that the Senior Committee would have a different collective opinion than the Centennial Committee. Since the Senior Committee has determined that these are the 25 best Seniors, as mind-boggling as that is, it seems they would stick with the same group and only add a few new candidates as those from the original 25 get elected.

I'm not enthusiastic about Craig like you. In my opinion, Craig, Clayton, Hayes, Hinton, Isbell, Jacoby, Johnson, Kenn, Klecko, Marshall, Matthews, Morgan, Nobis, Riley, Taylor and Walls don't belong anywhere near the HOF. I don't really support Anderson, Baughan, Kuechenberg, Kunz or Sharpe either because there are so many freaking other Seniors who are much more qualified, but I would elevate them over the others.

The only three definitely-should-be Hall of Famers of the 25 are Dilweg, Gradishar and Howley. I like Meador as well but there are other Seniors who rate higher.

I agree with this. It also shows the HOF voters are ignorant of history if this is the best senior list they can come up with.