Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Based on the recent vote of the Hall of Very Good Committee, Mark Bavaro, Les Bingaman, Matt Blair, Ray Bray, Charley Brock, Butch Byrd, George Christensen, Earl Faison, Mark Gastineau, Leon Gray, Bert Jones, Bucko Kilroy, Keith Jackson, Clay Matthews, Keith Millard, Peggy Parratt, Marvin Powell, Buster Ramsey, Mike Stratton and Lionel Taylor are this year's 20 finalists.

Here is the list of those who were nominated:

Joe Alexander
William Andrews
George Andrie
Mark Bavaro
Alyn Beals
Les Bingaman
Matt Blair
Forrest Blue
Al Blozis
Pat Brady
Ray Bray
Charley Brock
Larry Brooks
Butch Byrd
John Cannady
Ray Childress
George Christensen
Gary Clark
Monte Clark
Don Colo
Larry Craig
Randy Cross
Thom Darden
Bob Demarco
Don Doll
Fred Dryer
Red Dunn
Earl Faison
Gary Fencik
Manny Fernandez
Bill Fralic
John Gammons
Gary Garrison
Mark Gastineau
Abe Gibron
Gail Cogdill
Goose Gonsoulin
Leon Gray
Dennis Harrah
Chris Hinton
Tommy Hughitt
Kent Hull
Keith Jackson
Bert Jones
Louie Kelcher
Herman Kerkhoff
Bucko Kilroy
Ray Krouse
Jim Lachey
Warren Lahr
Nick Lowery
Clay Matthews
Steve McMichael
Ernie McMillan
Jim McMillen
Keith Millard
Chet Mutryn
Elbie Nickel
Jerry Norton
Jay Novacek
Riley Odoms
Peggy Parratt
Jim Poole
Marvin Powell
Eddie Price
Jethro Pugh
Buster Ramsey
Sonny Randle
Norb Sacksteder
Perry Schwartz
Harley Sewell
Phil Simms
Mike Stratton
Bob Talamini
Lionel Taylor
Joe Theismann
Billy Thompson
Tommy Thompson
Rick Upchurch
Brad Van Pelt
Wayne Walker
Russ Washington
John Wooten
Len Younce
Charlie Young

Thanks Andy ... I guess since the HOF wont respect the accoladed super-seniors and older players before 1970, maybe our fraternity can keep them honored ...

1) Christensen
2) Ramsey
3) Kilroy
4) Taylor
5) Bavaro

WHEN the voting period opens members of the PFRA may vote by selecting exactly 10 of the 20 finalists (more or less will not be counted) in a secret ballot (so as not to influence others' votes).

"Campaigning" for (/debates regarding) particular finalists can be done via posts in our forum.
Please feel free to start a topic(s) regarding someone you wish to discuss!*

Andy (and/or the Coffin Corner) will let us know when the voting period opens (and closes) and where to send out votes!
(And personally, I am pretty excited about that!)

*For example, like this: http://www.profootballresearchers.com/f ... f=8&t=5800

As usual, I can't vote because I don't see 10 people who deserve a vote.

rhickok1109 wrote:As usual, I can't vote because I don't see 10 people who deserve a vote.

Is there a minimum number of votes (greater than 1) that a name needs to receive during voting to get in?

RyanChristiansen wrote: Is there a minimum number of votes (greater than 1) that a name needs to receive during voting to get in?

At the risk of quoting myself:
All of those who appear on 55% of ballots are elected, up to a maximum of 10. The minimum is seven so seven are elected even if fewer than seven receive 55% (the next closest vote getters).

http://www.profootballresearchers.com/f ... f=8&t=6122

rhickok1109 wrote:As usual, I can't vote because I don't see 10 people who deserve a vote.

One could always choose the ten best of the finalists...

rhickok1109 wrote:As usual, I can't vote because I don't see 10 people who deserve a vote.

I don't like the "you must vote for 10" rule either. I brought this up during the business meeting at the 2018 convention. I think we should be allowed to vote for less than 10. (but no more than 10). Just my opinion... and yours as well.

JuggernautJ wrote:

RyanChristiansen wrote: Is there a minimum number of votes (greater than 1) that a name needs to receive during voting to get in?

At the risk of quoting myself:
All of those who appear on 55% of ballots are elected, up to a maximum of 10. The minimum is seven so seven are elected even if fewer than seven receive 55% (the next closest vote getters).

http://www.profootballresearchers.com/f ... f=8&t=6122

rhickok1109 wrote:As usual, I can't vote because I don't see 10 people who deserve a vote.

One could always choose the ten best of the finalists...

Why should I help elect someone who I don't think belongs?

Ralph, it seems like you voice the same complaint every year no matter how many times members of the Hall of Very Good Committee explain the reasoning behind the current format. You get on your high horse and proclaim how you refuse to dirty your hands by participating in a process you find flawed, yet you seemingly ignore the explanations we provide and also never put forward any kind of alternative. Others have put forward alternatives that, after discussion, people both on the Committee and without determined to be unworkable.

The overwhelming majority of PFRA members we hear from about the subject agree with us that we want classes of about 7-10 members each year and that we absolutely do not want classes of only 2-3 people. The overwhelming majority of PFRA members we hear from about the subject also agree with us that we absolutely do not want individuals getting elected to the HOVG with low vote totals in which they might appear on only ten percent or so of the ballots.

It should be clear that those two things are intrinsically linked to the stipulation that people vote for a minimum of ten. If people are allowed to vote for only one candidate or even 3-4, then it will be likely (and actually very likely) that candidates will get elected with very low vote totals if we keep the minimum per class at seven (which, as I said, practically everyone who comments on the matter favors).

Is that what you’re in favor of, Ralph, that we elect people who appear on only ten percent of ballots to the HOVG? And are you in favor of establishing a vote requirement that is so high that perhaps as few as two or three people get elected each year? Hopefully you realize that that is ridiculous. And if you choose to reply, would you please address those specific points rather than recycling the same old whine?

You have also proudly declared on numerous occasions that you’ve never voted in a HOVG election because at no time were there ten candidates worthy of your vote. Really? Back on those occasions when we had numerous future Hall of Famers on the ballot at one time along with many other outstanding players and coaches, you were not able to find ten candidates to vote for? Seriously?

And don’t forget about solutions. If you can come up with a system where we can still elect 7-10 people each year with reasonably high vote totals without stipulating that people vote for ten candidates, the HOVG Committee is all ears. But we’ve asked you that before, haven’t we, and all we heard was silence.

Andy Piascik wrote:Ralph, it seems like you voice the same complaint every year no matter how many times members of the Hall of Very Good Committee explain the reasoning behind the current format. You get on your high horse and proclaim how you refuse to dirty your hands by participating in a process you find flawed, yet you seemingly ignore the explanations we provide and also never put forward any kind of alternative. Others have put forward alternatives that, after discussion, people both on the Committee and without determined to be unworkable.

The overwhelming majority of PFRA members we hear from about the subject agree with us that we want classes of about 7-10 members each year and that we absolutely do not want classes of only 2-3 people. The overwhelming majority of PFRA members we hear from about the subject also agree with us that we absolutely do not want individuals getting elected to the HOVG with low vote totals in which they might appear on only ten percent or so of the ballots.

It should be clear that those two things are intrinsically linked to the stipulation that people vote for a minimum of ten. If people are allowed to vote for only one candidate or even 3-4, then it will be likely (and actually very likely) that candidates will get elected with very low vote totals if we keep the minimum per class at seven (which, as I said, practically everyone who comments on the matter favors).

Is that what you’re in favor of, Ralph, that we elect people who appear on only ten percent of ballots to the HOVG? And are you in favor of establishing a vote requirement that is so high that perhaps as few as two or three people get elected each year? Hopefully you realize that that is ridiculous. And if you choose to reply, would you please address those specific points rather than recycling the same old whine?

You have also proudly declared on numerous occasions that you’ve never voted in a HOVG election because at no time were there ten candidates worthy of your vote. Really? Back on those occasions when we had numerous future Hall of Famers on the ballot at one time along with many other outstanding players and coaches, you were not able to find ten candidates to vote for? Seriously?

And don’t forget about solutions. If you can come up with a system where we can still elect 7-10 people each year with reasonably high vote totals without stipulating that people vote for ten candidates, the HOVG Committee is all ears. But we’ve asked you that before, haven’t we, and all we heard was silence.

I have no interest in coming up with a system where 7-10 people a year are elected because I think that number is much too high.

I certainly don't realize that it's "ridiculous" to elect as few as two or three people each year, although I think that four to five might be the ideal number. Electing seven to 10 each year simply waters down the HOVG itself and also depletes the pool of candidates.