Has the Hall of Fame Inducted too many Players?

[SissyBoyFloyd]

Baseball has inducted an average of 2 per year, while football has averaged 50% more than that, or roughly 3 per year. Is football diluting the NFL HofF by adding way too many players? Or maybe they need to create a Premier section for the top 50-100 players? What is your feeling on this?

Personally, I would have preferred if the qualifications would have been strictor. I think that maybe it has become too much of a stat comparison club regarding QBs, RBs, and WRs. I feel even stronger in regards to baseball and the use of stat comparisons entering into evaluating the worthiness of players. I feel in both sports, players need to have done something unique, extreme, or something in a manner that put them above all other players in their era and/or decades in which they played, with consistency over a very long career.

 

[PACardsFan]

What do you expect. We live in an era of participation trophies, so of course they’ve gone soft on HOF requirement.

 

[Cardiac]

The actual poll should be has sissyboy started too many polls.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

What do you expect. We live in an era of participation trophies, so of course they’ve gone soft on HOF requirement.

Disagree. There are significantly more players in the NFL than baseball or basketball. To say NFL ‘s greatest players of all time are getting into the hall due to participation trophy mentality is pretty absurd.

 

[Shane]

Disagree. There are significantly more players in the NFL than baseball or basketball. To say NFL ‘s greatest players of all time are getting into the hall due to participation trophy mentality is pretty absurd.

There are also signifigantly more players on the field of play in football as opposed to baseball and basketball. To compare the two are kind of absurd. 22 positions worthy of notoriety and thats
not counting specialists like STs aces and kickers and punters.

Thats 25 recognizable positions for achievement as opposed to basketballs 5-6 if you count 6th man. Or baseballs 9-11 for baseball if you add closers. Football should have a LOT more members.

Thats not adding the fact that the NFL also has 32 teams as opposed to 30 like the other leagues. Two more teams to draw from an “excellence pool”

 

[Krangodnzr]

There are also signifigantly more players on the field of play in football as opposed to baseball and basketball. To compare the two are kind of absurd. 22 positions worthy of notoriety and thats
not counting specialists like STs aces and kickers and punters.

Thats 25 recognizable positions for achievement as opposed to basketballs 5-6 if you count 6th man. Or baseballs 9-11 for baseball if you add closers. Football should have a LOT more members.

I was thinking the same thing (great minds think a like).

It's exceedingly rare that you see someone make it who totally didn't belong. Look at the current class at riddle me who doesn't belong. Maybe Megatron because his numbers aren't that big all time and he never won anything, not even really any playoff games. But he was an all time talent for a few years and based on that he belongs. I've never liked people using team success as a reason for a player getting in or not getting in since that means you're admission into the HOF is based on the played of 52 other guys.

 

[Shane]

I was thinking the same thing (great minds think a like).

It's exceedingly rare that you see someone make it who totally didn't belong. Look at the current class at riddle me who doesn't belong. Maybe Megatron because his numbers aren't that big all time and he never won anything, not even really any playoff games. But he was an all time talent for a few years and based on that he belongs. I've never liked people using team success as a reason for a player getting in or not getting in since that means you're admission into the HOF is based on the played of 52 other guys.

I added to my post since you liked too which is also huge.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I added to my post since you liked too which is also huge.

I personally cringe at people who don't like recognizing people's talent.

In the military for awards, it seems like there are two schools of thought: commanders who give awards like candy, and commanders who are stingy with awards. When I got to Afghanistan, all section sergeants, officers in charge, platoon sergeants, platoon leaders, and company command groups received bronze stars for their tours. A new General took over our Division and he wouldn't approve bronze stars unless you did something truly outstanding. I was personally annoyed by this because I knew people who got bronze stars for their tours, while most of my units leadership did not get them. Awards in any organization are subjective; I think you should lean towards recognizing people and not worry about "devaluing" the award.

 

[Finito]

Baseball has inducted an average of 2 per year, while football has averaged 50% more than that, or roughly 3 per year. Is football diluting the NFL HofF by adding way too many players? Or maybe they need to create a Premier section for the top 50-100 players? What is your feeling on this?

Personally, I would have preferred if the qualifications would have been strictor. I think that maybe it has become too much of a stat comparison club regarding QBs, RBs, and WRs. I feel even stronger in regards to baseball and the use of stat comparisons entering into evaluating the worthiness of players. I feel in both sports, players need to have done something unique, extreme, or something in a manner that put them above all other players in their era and/or decades in which they played, with consistency over a very long career.

I don’t want to hear a damn thing about the joke that is the baseball hall of fame

oh they used steroids ooooh no guess who knew there were on steroids and loved all the money and attention those guys brought...baseball

 

[Zeem_Freeze]

My god. What a blatant display of indifference to numbers

 

[Cheesebeef]

What do you expect. We live in an era of participation trophies, so of course they’ve gone soft on HOF requirement.

you can thank the South and their slavish devotion to the ultimate participation trophy/ loser flag with the stars and bars for the beginning of that trend.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

There are, I believe, about 360 players total in the NFL HOF, counting the recent inductees. That’s it. Out of 24,000-ish to ever play in the NFL. That is less than 2% of players. Give us a break with the participation trophy junk.

 

[QuebecCard]

I don’t want to hear a damn thing about the joke that is the baseball hall of fame

oh they used steroids ooooh no guess who knew there were on steroids and loved all the money and attention those guys brought...baseball

The baseball hall of fame is an entity separate from the major leagues and can set its own rules on membership, which it does.

 

[QuebecCard]

What do you expect. We live in an era of participation trophies, so of course they’ve gone soft on HOF requirement.

Yikes!!!

Participation types don't make it to college ball.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

Yikes!!!

Participation types don't make it to college ball.

So, we shouldn’t be handing out silver or bronze medals at the Olympics either?
If you’re not first, you’re last?

 

[Finito]

The baseball hall of fame is an entity separate from the major leagues and can set its own rules on membership, which it does.

Uh ok

 

[PACardsFan]

Yikes!!!

Participation types don't make it to college ball.

No one is saying that the participation types are making their way into the NFL HOF. That would be absurd to say. My point is that IMO, the bar of greatness has been slightly lowered. Now, I could be wrong. There’s a first time for everything

 

[QuebecCard]

So, we shouldn’t be handing out silver or bronze medals at the Olympics either?
If you’re not first, you’re last?

When was finishing second or third in a competition reduced to "thanks for taking part"?

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

When was finishing second or third in a competition reduced to "thanks for taking part"?

That is my point with the claims about the NFL HOF.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

No one is saying that the participation types are making their way into the NFL HOF. That would be absurd to say. My point is that IMO, the bar of greatness has been slightly lowered. Now, I could be wrong. There’s a first time for everything

Greatly lowered to 1.5% of all players in history?

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

According the the National Baseball Hall of fame there have been 19,000 players EDIT: 263 have been elected to the HOF. That is a rate of EDIT: 1.3% which is pretty much in line with the NFL.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

So, we shouldn’t be handing out silver or bronze medals at the Olympics either?
If you’re not first, you’re last?

Well personally, and I stress personally because it is just an individual mindset for some, you are correct. There is only 2 positions in any contest, game, or sport: Winner or Loser. I, and again I stress personally, always felt that way. I have come in 2nd several times when I played sports and it never excited me. The only thing I felt was that I lost and didn't accomplish my goal. (And it still haunts me today.) Maybe for some who aren't winners per se, are thrilled to get 2nd or 3rd place. But I doubt that the winners of the world, deep down, feel good or honored to not win no matter what place they get.

But, what does that really have to do with my thread. And whoever brought up the idea of participation awards, well that has nothing to do with what I said or about this thread's topic. I just feel that there is some number you get to in these HoF type things, where one can start looking at the 100's or 1000's that are in and realize that there are a much lesser % of those that stand out way above the others that are in, and that one could make a case that they could have their own grouping of higher Fame and recognition, which of course is what the HoF started out to be in the first place.

And true, baseball has had a lot of situations where some eras seemed to have advantages over others, that when compared certainly don't seem level or even fair. But maybe football has had its own steroid and cocaine induced eras, as well as different rule changes, refereeing, goal post changes, etc being so varied.

Just a thought!

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Well personally, and I stress personally because it is just an individual mindset for some, you are correct. There is only 2 positions in any contest, game, or sport: Winner or Loser. I, and again I stress personally, always felt that way. I have come in 2nd several times when I played sports and it never excited me. The only thing I felt was that I lost and didn't accomplish my goal. (And it still haunts me today.) Maybe for some who aren't winners per se, are thrilled to get 2nd or 3rd place. But I doubt that the winners of the world, deep down, feel good or honored to not win no matter what place they get.

But, what does that really have to do with my thread. And whoever brought up the idea of participation awards, well that has nothing to do with what I said or about this thread's topic. I just feel that there is some number you get to in these HoF type things, where one can start looking at the 100's or 1000's that are in and realize that there are a much lesser % of those that stand out way above the others that are in, and that one could make a case that they could have their own grouping of higher Fame and recognition, which of course is what the HoF started out to be in the first place.

And true, baseball has had a lot of situations where some eras seemed to have advantages over others, that when compared certainly don't seem level or even fair. But maybe football has had its own steroid and cocaine induced eras, as well as different rule changes, refereeing, goal post changes, etc being so varied.

Just a thought!

Here’s another thought: competition is all relative. It’s not, and need not, be winner and losers as the Olympics proves. Silver and bronze medals are cherished by the winners. Being the second fastest runner in the world means you’re faster that than how many billions of people? Because there’s one faster you should be a loser? That’s patently ridiculous. And I guess if you’re not the richest, happiest, strongest, healthiest, smartest man in the world you’re just a total loser Sissy. Did I get that right? All of life is a competition in some aspect.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

Here’s another thought: competition is all relative. It’s not, and need not, be winner and losers as the Olympics proves. Silver and bronze medals are cherished by the winners. Being the second fastest runner in the world means you’re faster that than how many billions of people? Because there’s one faster you should be a loser? That’s patently ridiculous. And I guess if you’re not the richest, happiest, strongest, healthiest, smartest man in the world you’re just a total loser Sissy. Did I get that right? All of life is a competition in some aspect.

You are right, but that doesn't change the competitive nature I seemed to developed. It served me well in reaching the top in many meager to professional endeavors in my life, yet did take the fun out of many activities, especially what should have been leisurely ones. Success, for some, can be a very lonely road.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

You are right, but that doesn't change the competitive nature I seemed to developed. It served me well in reaching the top in many meager to professional endeavors in my life, yet did take the fun out of many activities, especially what should have been leisurely ones. Success, for some, can be a very lonely road.

Then it begs the question: is that really “success?”