Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Brian wolf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 7:35 pm Not alot of comments over the Class Of 2024. Hopefully, alot of people voted? Hull is getting closer ... the Bills line did a fine job for the HOF skill positions, too bad they dont get enough respect.
Yet then again, neither did the 70's Steelers line with their championships.

My understanding is votes we among the most ever? I could be wrong - but I think that was discussed.

However, kind of some issue with the super seniors being passed over, and wondering if we are not that different than Hall voters.

I have attempted to do about 50-50 on my ballot. But the solution is that we discuss the need for pre-1950s getting more information posted about them ... I nominated Kopcha, but was embarrassed I didn't do it before this year. So, I will be welcoming a discussion about him for next year. If he does not make it that is fine, but as my nominee I should have talked about him more. And maybe others can post about their older guy ...

anyway ... that's a nutshell of what I think is happening

JameisBrownston wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:07 am There is no universe in which it makes sense for both Arnie Herber to be a no doubt HOFer and Red Dunn to get 20% of the vote for HOVG. Are we coming down with Dilweg-Lewellen Syndrome?!

Interesting point, but I think Dunn is a tough sell because he's not being compared to Herber, he's being compared to players who look better on PFR (and in some cases are aided by longer careers and/or better statistics, neither of which we see often in the '20s). He didn't get the contemporary postseason recognition others did, so like @JohnTurney said, we have to discuss him on the board, on blogs, Coffin Corner, Gridiron Greats, etc.

Even with all that, I think it's a long road - there was no campaign needed for Ellard or Morgan for example. They were good players, who played a skill position and were relatively recently eligible. IMO, I think it's going to be tough unless we go to a system that does some kind of era partitioning.

Christensen didn't do terribly though. I'd like to see him make top 10 next year and I'd like to see the committee continue to put through super seniors so at least they get the visibility.

After these results, I think the writing is on the wall for 20s and 30s guys. All the ones enough people care about have already gotten in. I'm even more impressed you were able to finally push Latone through after this. Besides Dunn, Ed Danowski would be the next one I'd like to see, but I think he gets nominated every year and never makes the vote. I have no one high on my priority list for 40s and 50s, so I'll be focusing on 1960-2000 players I think actually have a chance with my 2025 nominations.

Members need to nominate no matter what ... Nobody nominated Russ Washington this year ... he was a finalist last year.

I'd also like for there to be more transparency around the process of choosing the 20 finalists every year, so we could tailor our nominations to the committee's criteria and tendencies. But there's really no transparency with the HOF's process either, we just see lists with no explanations, so it's not like we're any worse. Maybe it's done this way for a reason?

JameisBrownston wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 7:09 pm I'd also like for there to be more transparency around the process of choosing the 20 finalists every year, so we could tailor our nominations to the committee's criteria and tendencies. But there's really no transparency with the HOF's process either, we just see lists with no explanations, so it's not like we're any worse. Maybe it's done this way for a reason?

I don't understand what you are asking.

The list of nominees is posted every year, as are the 20 Finalists:

https://www.profootballresearchers.org/ ... 21c3776915

We also publish the vote totals from the election:

https://www.profootballresearchers.org/ ... ff6a8e9fe4

Are you asking why the committee votes for each Finalist? Like what the reasoning is? The committee puts their heads together and selects the most deserving nominees as the 20 Finalists. Then it is the PFRA membership body that votes on the 20 Finalists to create the inductees.

Yeah, everything that goes on in between the end of nominating and the final list of 20. Why certain candidates are nominated every year and never go any farther for no clear reason (e.g. Carroll Dale), why a finalist from last year who came up just short wasn't a finalist this year (where did Herschel Walker go?!), why a candidate who might not have been nominated before gets chosen, things like that. Does the committee rotate or stay mostly the same year to year? Are candidates who've been nominated for several years more likely to be chosen? Does the number of people nominating a candidate within one year matter? What is the committee's process, do they hold a formal vote yes/no on every nominee and the 20 who get the most yes votes qualify? In general, how can we nominate more efficiently so our picks have a better chance of getting on the ballot?

Not sure where this whole "transparency" thing is coming from. It's not like the committee members are secretly emailing each other and saying, "Let's keep that guy off so my guy can get in." I am a Buffalo guy and would have loved to have Kent Hull get in, but he didn't receive enough votes. Tough titty. We vote for who we believe is most deserving, not our just our favorite players. The top vote getters are listed and we vote on the 20 we think are most deserving among that list. We rank them from most deserving to least, and they are scored that way (#1 gets 20 points, #20 gets one point ... simple). I can assure you that nothing nefarious or shady is going on. If all people are concerned about is their favorite guy not getting in, I would suggest making the case to other PFRA members (or even committee members) to convince them to vote for your guy.

Getting the wrong idea. I just want more insight into how the process unfolds every year. Not because there's anything suspicious going on - I really just want to hear about it because I'm interested, plain and simple. It's useful for us in multiple ways: 1. weird cases like Herschel Walker would have an official explanation, 2. the committee giving a background, maybe even campaigning, for each of their selections can better inform me on who to vote for than just looking at PFR, and 3. we'd get a sense of what the committee likes and that would help us refine our future nominations.

Yeah, I noticed that about Hershel Walker, too. Of course, just about everything to do with that dude is weird, so maybe it's fitting.