Can you define a Hall of Famer?
Should there be a change in selection process or people?
How would you define a Hall of Fame player?
I posed that question to the entire Pro Football Hall of Fame selection committee this week. Every answer varied on one theme: excellence over an extended period of time, with a nod to using your eyes and nose. We’ll get back to those body parts later.
Defining the requisite criteria for a Hall of Fame player has become a burning topic lately, with flames fanned through the convenience of social media. Even current Hall of Fame players weren’t bashful about discussing it during their visit to the induction ceremonies at Canton last week, although not on the record, of course.
When the new class is announced each year, the predictable reaction is to focus on those who did NOT make it.
Heading into my 32nd year on the selection committee, I have seen these reactions grow. One thing does remain the same. Every complaint about somebody who should have been inducted is not accompanied by the suggestion of which inductee should be replaced by this so-called snubbed player. Fellow selector Howard Balzer’s response to this annual bitchfest is, “Instead of whom?”
Of course, those who prey on selections that way are just seeking attention — can you say clickbait? Such easy but gutless gripes usually pander to the popularity of some local, regional and sometimes national star. Naming who the snubee should replace is too much of a downer and might ruin the moment.
That said, I agree that the most worthy players are not always the ones who get inducted yearly. But that is just my opinion. The selection committee has 50 members, and they sure as hell don’t agree as they begin the annual cutdown from more than 150 Modern Era and a like number of Senior candidates. Even during the final cuts, we gripe among ourselves.
***************************************
This is the first in a series. Watch for the Hall of Football’s unique charts that rate both Modern Era and Senior Hall of Fame prospects.
********************************************
But we respect the process and all the work that goes into it and accept the final decision — more or less — so as not to cast a pall over the new inductees, who deserve a measure of respect regardless of what you think of them as a Hall of Famer.
So, what, if anything, needs to be done? I’ll save my suggestion for later.
Before diving into this, let’s do a reality check. Since the NFL was founded on Sept. 17, 1920, in a Canton, Ohio, car dealership (the league was called the American Professional Football Association), almost 30,000 players have participated. On September 7, 1963, the Pro Football Hall of Fame began enshrining participants, both past and present. Since then, 378 players, coaches, owners, and contributors have been inducted. Of that total, 330 were voted in as players.
So, 1.2567 percent of all participants over more than 100 years were inducted into the Hall of Fame. I’m not a math or analytics guy, but even without checking my official NFL abacus, this seems like an exclusive group.
But some think otherwise.
Hall of Fame cornerback Deion Sanders, now head coach at Colorado, has made the loudest and most focused complaints. He suggested several times that there should be two levels of inductees, one on his exalted tier and others on a lower level. He also talked about different-colored jackets for different grades of HOF players.
We cannot see that happening, but Hall of Fame executive Rich Desrosiers said last month that some changes will be made. The Hall has been working on this for over a year, so stay tuned.
Deion first went off on the subject in 2020 on the Dan Patrick Show.
“What is the Hall of Fame, now?” he asked. “Is it a guy who played a long time? It’s so skewed I don’t know what’s what. At one time, a Hall of Famer changed the durn game. He provoked you to reach in your pocket and pay to see the guy play.”
Mmm. Excuse me, Prime. They may have paid to see your flash and dash, but what about offensive linemen? Do they belong in the Hall of Fame? OK, we will sidestep that reality for now. Go on.
“That’s not the Hall of Fame anymore,” he continued. “Every Tom, Dick, and Harry. …you’re a Hall of Famer, you’re a Hall of Famer. … They let everybody in this thing now. It’s not exclusive anymore. And I don’t like it.”
“So what would be your definition?” Patrick asked.
“Someone who changed the game.” said Sanders. “Someone who had a profound take and a profound influence on the game. Like Randy Moss. You don’t even have to think about that.”
Mmm. Excuse me again, Prime, but Randy Moss was a first-ballot inductee, but go ahead.
Patrick then offered an example. saying, “Barry Sanders,” to which Deion quickly replied, “You don’t even have to think about it.”
Patrick: “Eli Manning”
“Yeah, you got the point of this talk,” said Sanders, implying Manning didn’t survive the “no think” test. Interestingly, Manning is eligible for the next class (2025), but we have time to think about it whether Deion likes it or not.
Deion goes on to question the number of people who are inducted each year, which, including contributors, can range from four to nine and is usually the higher number. The 2025 class can induct nine Hall of Famers: five modern players, three seniors, and one coach or contributor.
The 2024 class was seven when the full committee rejected the senior/contributor subcommittee nomination of one senior player and one coach. We will discuss that process another time.
Let’s see who is inducting all these people.
Again, there are 50 selectors. The Committee consists of one media representative from each pro football franchise and a 33rd media member representing the Pro Football Writers of America. There are 17 at-large delegates. That includes four Hall of Famers who are also active in the media: former quarterback Dan Fouts, former receiver James Lofton, former coach Tony Dungy, and former team executive Bill Polian.
The Hall of Fame's sole guideline is to consider only what happens on the football field, although selectors have allowed their perspective to be skewed by off-field activity that they insist impacted the team. The uneven application of this flawed view is bothersome and uncomfortable in an era that is supposed to be more socially sensitive. Read between the lines, and we will stay on topic.
Some Hall of Fame former players have suggested that the committee use more players and fewer media, based on a belief that players have a better understanding. While the words sound somewhat logical, the concept is deeply flawed. The current media selectors average 16 years on the committee, including 13 with more than 20 years of service. They also average more than 27 years covering and studying pro football, including the history of the game and the current draft.
That compares to players who might average 12 years of play with marginal knowledge of what went before, after, or beyond their view. From what I have heard from players, they will stand on the table for former teammates, but hide under it when discussing former opponents. Teammates versus foes ‘til the end. Coaching experience is better, especially for those who were active in player acquisition. Hello, Jimmy Johnson. Good team executives should be a plus. But like anything else, there are strengths and weaknesses in each group.
Also, the media’s selectors ALWAYS consult players about candidates. Input from players and coaches is up to 75 percent of a presenter’s material. So, they already have significant input. If we swapped media for players on the committee, do you think players would consult media members, many of whom have covered football for four decades?
So, I warn those who believe replacing media with players will improve anything. It would result in the loss of decades of perspective and insight. Recency bias is already a problem, and it would increase. Those on whom more recent players stood will be forgotten forever.
There are folks out there who have an extraordinary understanding of the people who play the game. That includes broadcaster and Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman. Just listen to how much he knows about even rookies. He obviously spends a lot of time evaluating. There is also former team executive Pat Kirwan and his Sirius Radio sidekick, former quarterback Jim Miller. Their Moving the Chains program (Sirius XM, channel 88) is an advanced course in player evaluation.
I believe the notion that players and coaches will solve some perceived problem is specious. They all struggle with the same questions, almost like trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Remember the premise of this story? I asked selectors how they would define a Hall of Fame player.
“How do you define ‘fame?’” responded Jason Cole, a writer who knows he should not answer a question with a question. Oh, it was a setup. “It’s not easy. There are statistical milestones, honors, team achievements, longevity, and other various statistical standards, but they’re extremely flexible.”
“As Len Pasquarelli once said, ultimately, it’s a smell test,” Cole said, referencing a long-time respected football writer and former selector. “Did someone do enough in whatever they did in the game to be worth honoring?”
Got it. The smell test. Must have a nose for football.
“I think your eyes see it,” offered writer Scott Garceau, changing our anatomical focus. Garceau is an enlightened, 20-year selector covering the Baltimore Ravens. “Best of class, game-changer, the wow factor! It may be more difficult with interior linemen, but those that dominate do stand out and earn All-Pro, All-Decade, and Pro Bowl honors.
“The key is to be that player for an extended period. There are those that shine bright for a few years but fail to have Hall of Fame careers. Greatness for an extended period deserves a bust in Canton. "
Polian fired questions in machine gun style for his answer:
Must you have game planned against him? Must he be stopped for the opponent to win?
Did he take over games, particularly at critical times, and contribute greatly to winning ?
Did he have more than 5 seasons as a top 10% player at his position as measured by Giddings? (referencing well-known personnel evaluator Mike Giddings)
Is he statistically among the best at his position in league history?
Did he have an 8-year-or-more career?
Was he a repeat 1st or 2nd team All-Pro?
One or more of those interrogatives certainly hit the bulls-eye. We’ll get back to you on that, Bill.
Dungy was more nuanced.
“To me, a Hall of Fame player is one who was a dominant player at his position during the time he played,” the coach said. “I don’t think we can compare stats between eras. I don’t think we should go by championships won or team records. Obviously, great players help their teams win championships, and that’s part of it. Playing big roles in big games is important. But if you demonstrate you are the best at what you do and you dominate your position during the time you play, certainly not just a year or two but over a career. That should be a Hall of Famer.”
It sounds like a game plan, but too often, multiple people seem to have similar credentials, especially at wide receiver, where stats are devalued so much each year that they have become more confusing than helpful.
I mean, a 1,000-yard year as a receiver was pretty good in a 14-game season when passing was around 50 percent of the offense. But we have 17 games now, going on 18, and passing is more than 70 percent of the offense.
So receivers have more yards, quarterbacks blow up the scoreboard, defenders should be more sacks and interceptions, and statistical comparisons across eras are a joke. We must focus on each player relative to his era, which should enhance data from previous decades compared to all ensuing prolific performances.
But I know damn well that doesn’t happen because too many are impressed only by the bloated numbers that came after ESPN and the NFL Network deified players in living color. That’s why we have a senior committee of a dozen selectors who are familiar with players who did extraordinary things in black and white. However, the rest of the selectors must take the findings of the senior committee seriously.
OK, end old-fart rant. Moving on.
I believe the process would work better if we set the bar a little higher across the board. If we are mired in a debate about a player for too many years, maybe we are trying too hard to create a Hall of Famer. It shouldn’t be that damned hard to identify a true Hall of Famer. Sometimes, when there is a bottleneck of too many players in one position, maybe none of them are Hall of Famers.
My basic method of selecting a Hall of Famer, especially as opposed to another, is the cyclone fence approach. It’s like when we picked sides for a game in the park or wherever we played as kids.
Everybody lines up on the cyclone fence, and you pick the one you think is best. You must do your homework first because this approach diminishes stats and awards, which might result from being on the right team. The competitor in me makes it personal. I want the guy who is going to beat your ass.
OK, let’s play ball.
I agree with Deion that we may feel obligated to induct too many Hall of Famers yearly. If we raise the bar and don’t guilt trip about players we know who fall short, the Hall of Fame may improve its image as being even more prestigious.
It’s all relative. I mean, a club that allows only 1.2567 percent of prospects to enter is already pretty damned exclusive.
This is the first in a series. Watch for the Hall of Football’s unique charts that rate both Modern Era and Senior Hall of Fame prospects.
One of my favorite tropes, that I hear from fans all the time, is that the sportswriters on the committee are too biased because they hold old grudges. Players would be less biased because they don't hold grudges.
It's hilarious to think that's true. Five minutes talking to most old players and you realize they are still grinding about 200 axes from 1997. But yeah, imma sandbag a guy because he denied me an interview once.
I also love the theory that the old players "know the game better." Like Deion, who could not identify Kevin Byard when he was an All Pro.