Sporting News Top 10 HOF snubs

Reaser
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:58 am
Location: WA

Re: Sporting News Top 10 HOF snubs

Post by Reaser »

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Thanks Reaser. What does it take for a HOVG candidate to be considered by the committee? Does the player have to be on a certain number/percentage of ballots?
All PFRA members can nominate five players/coaches - that have been retired at least 25 years.
The HOVG committee goes through all nominations and votes the list down to a final 20.
Those 20 are on the ballot and all PFRA members (that want to) vote for 10.
Those that were on 55% of the submitted ballots are elected.

There's been slight changes over the years (believe it started out as retired 20 years then bumped up to 25, for example) but that's how it is now.
ChrisBabcock
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:36 pm
Location: Tonawanda, NY

Re: Sporting News Top 10 HOF snubs

Post by ChrisBabcock »

Those that were on 55% of the submitted ballots are elected.
Don't exactly 10 get elected every year though?
Reaser
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:58 am
Location: WA

Re: Sporting News Top 10 HOF snubs

Post by Reaser »

ChrisBabcock wrote:Don't exactly 10 get elected every year though?
Nope. 7 last year. I believe 8 the year before, and so on.

Here's a list (at the bottom you can go year-by-year): http://www.profootballresearchers.com/h ... y-good.htm
User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Re: Sporting News Top 10 HOF snubs

Post by oldecapecod11 »

After tabulating a couple hundred ballots, it is strange that the vote count is never shared with the members?

Is there a reason that only the names of the chosen are announced and not the vote tally?

This might be very interesting data for potential members from the ladies' leagues.

If anyone is interested, a data base with all HOVG honorees is available so you can view it either
alphabetically or chronologically.
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
User avatar
TanksAndSpartans
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:05 am

Re: Sporting News Top 10 HOF snubs

Post by TanksAndSpartans »

Thanks - I just submitted my 2016 nominations after seeing the ad in my first Coffin Corner and I was curious about the process.
ChrisBabcock
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:36 pm
Location: Tonawanda, NY

Re: Sporting News Top 10 HOF snubs

Post by ChrisBabcock »

Nope. 7 last year. I believe 8 the year before, and so on.

Here's a list (at the bottom you can go year-by-year): http://www.profootballresearchers.com/h ... y-good.htm
oh duh... That's right. I was thinking of the nominating process.
JWL
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:35 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Sporting News Top 10 HOF snubs

Post by JWL »

JWL wrote:My 10 in alphabetical order-
Robert Brazile
Lavvie Dilweg
Kenny Easley
Randy Gradishar
Chuck Howley
Lemar Parrish
Johnny Robinson
Sterling Sharpe
Duke Slater
Al Wistert

Sharpe was a superb receiver, maybe even top 10 all-time. Del Shofner, Harold Jackson, Cliff Branch, Mac Speedie, Billy Howton, Otis Taylor and Drew Pearson are in a tier below Sharpe in my book. Of those seven, I don't know how to rank them exactly. Any of these seven receivers could replace Brazile on my top 10 snubs list with a good argument from someone on the forum.

*Others I considered- Erich Barnes, Charley Brock, Larry Grantham, Winston Hill, E.J. Holub, Jimmy Patton, Louis Wright, Bryant Young, Joe Klecko, L.C. Greenwood, George Christensen, Maxie Baughan, Jim Tyrer, Mark Bavaro, Sam Mills, Bobby Dillon, Albert Lewis, Terrell Davis, Kurt Warner, Priest Holmes, Verne Lewellen, Ox Emerson, Don Perkins, Ken Anderson and Cliff Harris.

*I am not sure any of these would make my personal Hall of Fame. I will actually put together such a thing but I have to develop some particular criteria first.
I had Bryant Young noted as a HOF snub. I open myself up for clown consideration, of course.
Post Reply