My biggest concern is the new process will split votes on deserving greats who would have been selected in the previous process.
For example: the current wide receiver logjam that finally broke with Andre Johnson 2024. What if Torry Holt and Reggie Wayne each have substantial support and receive ~75% in the vote-down from final 7?
Not only is this unjust to them, as longtime finalists, but it also affects other WRs (Smith Sr., Ward, etc.) and others who deserve to be in the future conversation. And with recency bias, sadly some of those can get pushed to late Modern years and then likely the Seniors abyss. (Webb and Wiz were 1-for-35 years as semifinalists until this year.)
Imo the new process is faulty in part because a key stakeholder, the 50 selectors, was not engaged by the PFHOF Board. Hopefully, the new process works or is refined so that it is successful - the greatness legacy of football requires it
I agree about recency bias being an issue. It is vital that everyone involved is well-schooled in the credentials of players from all eras and decades. In other words, voters need to be football historians. During my years on the panel, that has been a strength that I hope continues.
I firmly believe that five modern-era candidates will be selected annually ad finitum. Perhaps five is not a large enough number for the category? We can't forget there will be many "slam dunks" coming up such as Tom Brady and Drew Brees and J.J. Watt and Larry Fitzgerald and Adrian Peterson and Jason Kelce and Trent Williams -- you get my drift.
Although I wouldn't suggest that we open wide the number of modern-era selectees, I do wonder if five is enough. To me, we are not watering down entry into Canton by enshrining the deserving, regardless of when they played.
Thanks for reading, Barry. You bring up good points. That said, increasing the number of inductees may not help unless selectors drill deeper into their homework and do not just select players with whom they are most acquainted. We can keep tweaking the process, but unless the personnel does its job, the results will not improve. That paints a bleak picture for the overburdened Seniors Category. We must stop giving first-year eligibles some faux status. IF a player is truly a first-ballot Hall of Famer, he should require little or no discussion. If we need to rationalize why a player is a Hall of Famer -- which is an annual event with wide receivers -- maybe we are CREATING a Hall of Famer.
My biggest concern is the new process will split votes on deserving greats who would have been selected in the previous process.
For example: the current wide receiver logjam that finally broke with Andre Johnson 2024. What if Torry Holt and Reggie Wayne each have substantial support and receive ~75% in the vote-down from final 7?
Not only is this unjust to them, as longtime finalists, but it also affects other WRs (Smith Sr., Ward, etc.) and others who deserve to be in the future conversation. And with recency bias, sadly some of those can get pushed to late Modern years and then likely the Seniors abyss. (Webb and Wiz were 1-for-35 years as semifinalists until this year.)
Imo the new process is faulty in part because a key stakeholder, the 50 selectors, was not engaged by the PFHOF Board. Hopefully, the new process works or is refined so that it is successful - the greatness legacy of football requires it
Frank:
I agree about recency bias being an issue. It is vital that everyone involved is well-schooled in the credentials of players from all eras and decades. In other words, voters need to be football historians. During my years on the panel, that has been a strength that I hope continues.
I firmly believe that five modern-era candidates will be selected annually ad finitum. Perhaps five is not a large enough number for the category? We can't forget there will be many "slam dunks" coming up such as Tom Brady and Drew Brees and J.J. Watt and Larry Fitzgerald and Adrian Peterson and Jason Kelce and Trent Williams -- you get my drift.
Although I wouldn't suggest that we open wide the number of modern-era selectees, I do wonder if five is enough. To me, we are not watering down entry into Canton by enshrining the deserving, regardless of when they played.
Barry
Thanks for reading, Barry. You bring up good points. That said, increasing the number of inductees may not help unless selectors drill deeper into their homework and do not just select players with whom they are most acquainted. We can keep tweaking the process, but unless the personnel does its job, the results will not improve. That paints a bleak picture for the overburdened Seniors Category. We must stop giving first-year eligibles some faux status. IF a player is truly a first-ballot Hall of Famer, he should require little or no discussion. If we need to rationalize why a player is a Hall of Famer -- which is an annual event with wide receivers -- maybe we are CREATING a Hall of Famer.