Andy Barall, who writes about pro football history for The Fifth Down, takes a look at the recent controversy over Hall of Fame balloting and fairness.
It happens almost every year around this time: outrage over the failure to elect a seemingly obvious Hall of Famer. This time it’s Bill Parcells. According to some, that’s because the selection committee must be incompetent, biased or even corrupt. As a result we’re now hearing calls for reforms like expanding the committee to include ex-players and coaches and to term-limit its members.
As long as the rules remain the same, however, altering the committee, even radically, probably won’t make the results any more acceptable.
If the Hall of Fame wanted to design a selection process almost guaranteed to produce controversy, they couldn’t have done better. After a lengthy debate the day before the Super Bowl over a list of 15 modern-era finalists, the number of candidates is reduced to 10, and then to 5, both by secret ballot. The final five are then voted on individually, with 80 percent approval needed for election.
The five-man maximum assures that 10 generally well-qualified candidates won’t make it. Indeed, it’s easy to make a compelling case for one or two of those 10 every year, sometimes more. The arguments for Parcells usually leave something out: Whom should he replace? That’s the problem. Parcells shouldn’t have to replace anyone.
The system requires the committee to consider each nominee beyond his own merits. In effect, they’re forced to make false choices.
For example, there’s been much speculation recently as to why Cris Carter again failed to be chosen. Was it a reflection of some personal animus against him? I don’t know, but the more likely explanation is that he’s splitting votes with the other two wide receivers on the ballot, Tim Brown and Andre Reed. Should the case for Carter, or any nominee, depend, in part, on who else happens to be a finalist? Either Carter is a Hall of Famer, or he isn’t.
With that, a few suggestions to consider:
– Abolish the five-man limit.
– Increase the number of modern-era finalists to at least 25.
– Vote individually on each finalist, yes or no. Would that result in too many new members every year? Would a substantial increase in membership diminish the Hall’s prestige? If so, the approval requirement could be raised above the current 80 percent.
– Create separate categories for players, for coaches and for contributors. It’s difficult to justify a system that makes the voters weigh the historical impact of a Paul Tagliabue or an Ed Sabol against that of a Jerome Bettis or Charles Haley.
– Make the vote totals and percentages public, and allow the committee members to openly discuss the details of the deliberations. Perhaps that would change the nature of the debate itself, but maybe that’s for the good.
As for Parcells, it won’t soon get any easier. Larry Allen, Jonathan Ogden, Michael Strahan and Warren Sapp will be eligible for the first time next year.