Pro Football Hall Of Fame - Off The Field Actions (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Disclaimer - I know this is barely Shark Pool material and I probably will post it in the FFA too as it's both a Football and a general topic.

First off, let's hope Lawrence Taylor is innocent. I don't have a lot to say about that until he's had his day in court. This isn't about Lawrence Taylor.

But let's talk about a hypothetical.

The question is how much (if any) should a player's off field actions influence his chances to make it into the Hall of Fame? The Baseball Hall Of Fame has in it's bylaws mentions of character and integrity that clearly speak to off the field actions. But the Pro Football Hall of Fame's bylaws are written so that voters are to consider just the on the field actions. Of course, voters vote how they want to - I'm just talking about how they're instructed to vote. What they do is up to them.

Here is the hypothetical:

Assume a player retires 3 years ago with no known off the field issues. His on the field performance was clearly worthy of being a first ballot Hall of Famer. With 2 years to go before he's eligible, he's convicted of a heinous crime like rape or murder.

Two questions:

Do you think the voters would vote him into the Hall of Fame?

If you were a voter, would you vote him into the Hall of Fame?

Let's hear it.

J

 

[David Yudkin]

While I don't think its intended to be the Hall of Eagle Scouts, I would think if a player did something truly unforgivable and heinous he would have a tough time getting voted in. But I think the bar for what that is would be awfully high. In LT's case, I doubt they would hold it against him had he been up for induction.

(And speaking of LT, last I saw the story circulating was that he was told by the handler that the girl was 19 and the handler was the one that roughed her up a bit. Still not great for LT, as underage is underage with no exceptions in NY. So he wil likely face a stiff penalty like Plaxico Buress did for their no tolerance stance on things.)

 

[Tau837]

I voted probably not to both questions.

On the subject of the voters in general, they are human and subject to being influenced by their emotional reaction to the crime, even though the voting criteria do not specify character/behavior as a criteria. I think their dislike for him as a person and the crime he committed would influence their vote. And it only takes a relatively small percentage to sway the vote.

I voted the same answer for myself for similar reasons.

That said, I said "probably not" instead of "absolutely not" for a couple of reasons. First, context matters. Was there any mitigating factors? Did the player express remorse (and seem sincere about it)? Is he being adequately punished? Second, you didn't specify a timeframe. I think he wouldn't get in on his first ballot of eligibility given the timing of your scenario... but we are a forgiving society. If the player was adequately punished by society's standards; expressed remorse, seemingly sincerely; lived a clean life after prison; and perhaps even devoted himself to charitable causes after prison in an effort to show his true remorse... then I could see him getting voted in within the 15 year window. It's unlikely, hence my "probably not" vote... but it's possible.

 

[Joe Bryant]

FWIW, both Mike Golic and Mark Schlereth on ESPN radio this morning said they'd vote for a player convicted of such a crime to be in the HOF. Greenberg didn't say what he'd do, but said that didn't think the voters would vote a player in that situation in.

J

 

[David Yudkin]

I also think that this would have to be on a case by case basis. If the candidate in question was borderline, than that would probably keep him out. The better the player, I think the more likely voters will be to turn the other way and vote for the guy anyway (if it's a fringe offense).

Even so, there could be some interesting scenarios to put this to the test. If Brett Favre was awaiting induction and it came out that he was the mastermind of a dogfighting and gambling ring a la Michael Vick, then things could get a lot more interesting. If Tom Brady blew up a palace of supermodels, he'd have a tough time getting in.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I pretty much agree with what has been said. I think, in this current media and societal climate, a guy might not get voted in. Heck, Micky Mantle would have been torn apart in the press and have a hard time. It's a reactionary time (for example see the probably unnecessary speed with which a new DROY vote is being run - forget getting all the facts, just look like you're taking action). Add to it you're talking about rape and I think that it would be very difficult for that player to make it in.

That might change - but right now? It's the way it seems.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

A violent game played by violent people, nobody should be surprised that some can't just flip a switch when needed. Let the law take care of what happens off the field.

 

[Zoomanji]

This isn't baseball people!

Isn't Paul Hornung in the HoF? I think he bet on football games

 

[jude]

this isnt going anywhere good....

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

absolutely not.

absolutely.

 

[Jason Wood]

Disclaimer - I know this is barely Shark Pool material and I probably will post it in the FFA too as it's both a Football and a general topic.First off, let's hope Lawrence Taylor is innocent. I don't have a lot to say about that until he's had his day in court. This isn't about Lawrence Taylor.But let's talk about a hypothetical. The question is how much (if any) should a player's off field actions influence his chances to make it into the Hall of Fame? The Baseball Hall Of Fame has in it's bylaws mentions of character and integrity that clearly speak to off the field actions. But the Pro Football Hall of Fame's bylaws are written so that voters are to consider just the on the field actions. Of course, voters vote how they want to - I'm just talking about how they're instructed to vote. What they do is up to them.Here is the hypothetical:Assume a player retires 3 years ago with no known off the field issues. His on the field performance was clearly worthy of being a first ballot Hall of Famer. With 2 years to go before he's eligible, he's convicted of a heinous crime like rape or murder.Two questionso you think the voters would vote him into the Hall of Fame?If you were a voter, would you vote him into the Hall of Fame?Let's hear it.J

I like what you did here Joe because it made me test my own assumptions. Usually when this conversation comes about, I'm in the camp that argues induction into Canton is for what these men did on the field, and has nothing to do with what kind of human beings they are off the field. And I would point to guys like Taylor (a well known drug abuser and womanizer before his induction) or Michael Irvin (same), and argue that they SHOULD be in the HOF. And I've even argued the flip side of that argument, that someone like Pat Tillman, who should be in the Hall of Famous American Patriots perhaps, doesn't deserve additional HOF consideration because of what he did with his military service.But you took it to the extreme and, truth be told, my views do change, sort of. Do I think, if Taylor gets convicted of statutory rape, he should be removed from the Hall? No. But do I think voters would not vote him in now if he were convicted but not yet inducted? Absolutely. In fact, I don't even think it's a maybe. I think he would have zero chance. And I personally would have trouble voting him in. Mainly because I would view a vote for him as a reward, and to me the act of rape supersedes any kind of recognition the man deserves for how good he was at his job. It's a tough road, and one I can see both sides of.

 

[Bri]

I would like the NFL and all sports to bear in mind their off the field actions. There's former NFL guys like Warrick Dunn and Curtis Martin that should be in solely by their off the field actions/contributions/generosity etc. Yes I do think on-field performance should be the large indicator and I was exagerating but if including "off the field actions" like crimes, is a means to include generosity and character well then I'm all for it.

Let the voters digest the good with the bad, if need be.

The Brian Cushing stuff points out that players are not eligible for end of year awards if they're suspended. I don't see why we need to make them not eligible for end of year awards AND not eligible for a career honor as well. Once is enough.

 

[Mello]

absolutely not.absolutely.

 

[GregR_2]

Disclaimer - I know this is barely Shark Pool material and I probably will post it in the FFA too as it's both a Football and a general topic.

First off, let's hope Lawrence Taylor is innocent. I don't have a lot to say about that until he's had his day in court. This isn't about Lawrence Taylor.

But let's talk about a hypothetical.

The question is how much (if any) should a player's off field actions influence his chances to make it into the Hall of Fame? The Baseball Hall Of Fame has in it's bylaws mentions of character and integrity that clearly speak to off the field actions. But the Pro Football Hall of Fame's bylaws are written so that voters are to consider just the on the field actions. Of course, voters vote how they want to - I'm just talking about how they're instructed to vote. What they do is up to them.

Here is the hypothetical:

Assume a player retires 3 years ago with no known off the field issues. His on the field performance was clearly worthy of being a first ballot Hall of Famer. With 2 years to go before he's eligible, he's convicted of a heinous crime like rape or murder.

Two questions:

Do you think the voters would vote him into the Hall of Fame?

If you were a voter, would you vote him into the Hall of Fame?

Let's hear it.

J

I like what you did here Joe because it made me test my own assumptions. Usually when this conversation comes about, I'm in the camp that argues induction into Canton is for what these men did on the field, and has nothing to do with what kind of human beings they are off the field. And I would point to guys like Taylor (a well known drug abuser and womanizer before his induction) or Michael Irvin (same), and argue that they SHOULD be in the HOF. And I've even argued the flip side of that argument, that someone like Pat Tillman, who should be in the Hall of Famous American Patriots perhaps, doesn't deserve additional HOF consideration because of what he did with his military service.But you took it to the extreme and, truth be told, my views do change, sort of. Do I think, if Taylor gets convicted of statutory rape, he should be removed from the Hall? No. But do I think voters would not vote him in now if he were convicted but not yet inducted? Absolutely. In fact, I don't even think it's a maybe. I think he would have zero chance. And I personally would have trouble voting him in. Mainly because I would view a vote for him as a reward, and to me the act of rape supersedes any kind of recognition the man deserves for how good he was at his job.

It's a tough road, and one I can see both sides of.

I have trouble agreeing with your bolded statement if you're applying it to, say, conviction for having sex with a willing participant who you were misled to believing was of legal age.I can agree wholeheartedly with you for the case of holding down an unwilling person and raping them. Joe's wording for his poll implies to me an act that everyone would consider utterly heinous. If LT's version turns out to be truthful, I'm not sure that's the case at all here.

 

[daveR]

Probably and Absolutely Not.

If you're the NFL, wouldn't putting a rapist / murderer on exhibit tarnish your product?

 

[CalBear]

Probably and Absolutely Not.If you're the NFL, wouldn't putting a rapist / murderer on exhibit tarnish your product?

They already have at least one, and they seem to be doing OK.

 

[Zoomanji]

Probably and Absolutely Not.If you're the NFL, wouldn't putting a rapist / murderer on exhibit tarnish your product?

We may find out in week 7

 

[Mello]

Probably and Absolutely Not.If you're the NFL, wouldn't putting a rapist / murderer on exhibit tarnish your product?

Only if people are incapable of respecting someone's football career while not respecting their personal life.

 

[daveR]

Probably and Absolutely Not.

If you're the NFL, wouldn't putting a rapist / murderer on exhibit tarnish your product?

Only if people are incapable of respecting someone's football career while not respecting their personal life.

So, I could put a bust of Bin Laden in Canton with something that says, "...yeah, but he ran a mean stop-n-go" and people would ignore the fact that he's scum? I dunno. I think they think that a quality image is worth something.

 

[SSOG]

absolutely not.absolutely.

This, although in retrospect I'd change the first vote to a "very, very probably not".

 

[ADP]

Key word for me is "convicted". I said absolutely not for both.

If they were just accused...ala OJ, Ray, and currently LT, then yeah I would vote them him. Being accused and being convicted is big difference.

 

[Raider Nation]

FWIW, both Mike Golic and Mark Schlereth on ESPN radio this morning said they'd vote for a player convicted of such a crime to be in the HOF. Greenberg didn't say what he'd do, but said that didn't think the voters would vote a player in that situation in.

Golic and Stink played the game. I value their input.I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why anyone would care what Mike Greenberg thinks about anything.

 

[Truman]

LT had a hard time getting in in the first place and he's pretty much the greatest defensive player ever. Voters would never go for it, so many of them have no integrity and don't understand the game to the level they should anyway.

 

[David Yudkin]

LT had a hard time getting in in the first place and he's pretty much the greatest defensive player ever. Voters would never go for it, so many of them have no integrity and don't understand the game to the level they should anyway.

???Taylor was a first ballot HOFer. How "hard" was it for him to get in? It's not like he was Lynn Swann, who made it in on his last year of eligibility (15 years) and needed an entire campaign to finally get inducted.

 

[SSOG]

LT had a hard time getting in in the first place and he's pretty much the greatest defensive player ever. Voters would never go for it, so many of them have no integrity and don't understand the game to the level they should anyway.

You have an awfully funny definition of a "hard time getting in". LT made it in on the first ballot. I've never heard anything to indicate that it was even close.

 

[Godsbrother]

Probably and Absolutely Not.If you're the NFL, wouldn't putting a rapist / murderer on exhibit tarnish your product?

We may find out in week 7

I assume you are referring to Ben Roethlisberger, a man whose criminal record is as clean (possibly cleaner) than yours.

 

[Matt Waldman]

As I mentioned before, this isn't he Life Hall of Fame. It's the Career Hall of Fame. That said, I doubt any group with a governing body and a huge PR presence like the NFL or even NFL writers would ever put a convicted felon of this magnitude on the ballot because they fear the PR backlash.

However, I don't think a player's honor should be stripped if he becomes a convicted felon. I also believe if the governing body had the stones to nominate a player that is a convicted felon of a heinous crime and he was a great football player, then I would vote for him based on his on-field merits. I would make sure there was a clear, teachable moment.

The problem, which Jason touches upon, is the "reward" aspect. I think the majority of the public would believe it's a reward and have a problem with it. I think part of the reason has to do with the business of the Hall of Fame. The NFL has made this a huge media event. Unlike other sports, it actually kicks off the games (preseason, but nonetheless), is televised nationally, and has a game in its honor to cap off the weekend. It's great PR and brings a full-circle theme to the sport where we are influenced to care about the players even more as people.

It's very well done. However, the potential downside (in such rare instances as your poll scenario) to the process is it forces voters to consider public opinion rather than what they are put in place to do: vote on the player's skill based on their knowledge of the game. I can see the argument that the HOF enshrinement is about "contributions to the game," and that contributions include how you conduct yourself in public. However, we've seen that the NFL doesn't not follow that approach.

I would go as far to argue that a guy rotting in prison would not even feel a bitter-sweet moment if he were inducted into the HOF, despite the public perceiving it was a reward. If you've been in a cell the size of two bathroom stalls for years, dealing with the unbearable noise, smell, violence and brutality of the American prison system, the thought of getting enshrined and not having the ability to be there has to be far more painful than sweet.

The problem for many people would be if they voted the guy in, would they stand up at the podium in Canton and give an induction speech on his behalf?

Personally. I would as long as I know that I can talk about his crime, my opinion of him as a person, and separate that from him as a player. However, that has to be the most unrealistic scenario ever, because I doubt the NFL would allow it.

 

[Zoomanji]

Probably and Absolutely Not.If you're the NFL, wouldn't putting a rapist / murderer on exhibit tarnish your product?

We may find out in week 7

I assume you are referring to Ben Roethlisberger, a man whose criminal record is as clean (possibly cleaner) than yours.

LOL