http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/8...r-now?MSNHPHMA
Printable View
So apparently if I was a huge jerk every game and trashed talk everyone including my own team but I won the Heisman every year I couldn't be in the hall of fame? :'(Quote:
The College Football Hall of Fame has no written morality or ethics clause, but Hatchell said character is factored in when players are considered for induction.
I understand that nobody likes him but it's the COLLEGE FOOTBALL hall of fame, not the good guy hall of fame. Personally I don't think they should take him out no matter how bad of a guy he is. This really doesn't have anything to do with his college career.
He deserves to be kicked out.
It's not just that "nobody likes him." He killed two people, brutally (allegedly, and yeah, that trial enough wasn't enough, in my mind, to kick him out of the Hall, but at this point... come on...), and he went on to commit an armed robbery.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
He shouldn't remain in the Hall of Fame. This is one case (possibly the only case I can think of) where a player should be ousted from a Hall of Fame based on their personal life.
I don't agree. What he did was horrible, but it didn't go back in time in the de Lorean and magically erase his numbers from the books at USC.
This is Mohamed Ali; Pete Rose; and Bill Clinton, all over again...no matter how despicable they appear to be in private life, what counts with me, it's what they do in their special field, during working hours.
I think that we're mistaken to regard "celebrities" as being role models: that function,, I believe, should be left us average Joes, during our daily rounds, performing our common tasks.
NONE of those people come anywhere close to OJ Simpson. There's simply no way to compare Pete Rose and OJ Simpson. Gambling and murder aren't really on the same level in terms of wrongdoing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongar
This isn't like Ty Cobb being a racist a$$hole or Barry Bonds being a jerk to the media, or Jose Canseco shooting roids into Mark McGwire's ass or Michael Irvin snorting lines of coke. This isn't a case of needing to be a role model or anything like that. AT ALL. It's a case of a guy who slashed 2 people to death, managed to avoid prison, and was stupid enough to commit ARMED ROBBERY afterwards. Not to mention all the crap he did in between those things.
The statistics shouldn't be "erased," but if I ran the Hall of Fame, there's no way his name or memorabilia would be anywhere NEAR my Hall.
ALLEGEDLY killed two people. Yeah, I believe he did it too, but even if you're going to add morality to the HoF, then you need to go by what the findings of the law. You (as HoF Coordinator/whatever) do not get to decide right from wrong.
For that matter you don't get to decide justice. There was a time I wanted Bonds to never go into the baseball HoF, and it still turns my stomach...but Rongar is right.
Unless someone does something that brings lasting harm to the game, then they shouldn't be disqualified. NCAA and NFL football didn't suffer over Simpson's misconduct.
Actually, he was found responsible for the deaths in a court of law. So yes, I'm going by the findings of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by CatKnight
Your argument is basically saying he doesn't belong in the hall of fame because he murdered people? Look I understand he murdered 2 people but regardless the hall of fame is about playing football, not what he did off the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
This 'argument' reminds me of the tired argument of what the MVP stands for. Look MVP is who was the best, not who's team made it to the playoffs and who played the best in september. Just like the HOF is who was really good at the sport, nothing else. Especially since the rules to get in to the HOF state nothing about someones 'character'. If it had been then sure, but because its not it seems stupid to go back and take someone out.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Well, baseball's HOF does include character in the qualifications. What exactly are the qualifications for the football HOF? If they do include any sort of reference to character, than O.J. probably doesn't belong (although I'm never in favor of removing somebody from any Hall), but if they don't, I'd say he absolutely belongs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I think that character is only considered when being inducted though, once the player is in I think that it should stand. As the article says, there is no clause once being inducted, and if there isn't then you shouldn't go back and change it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I mean it pretty much says right there that there is no rule, and personally I don't buy in to an 'unwritten rule'.Quote:
The College Football Hall of Fame has no written morality or ethics clause, but Hatchell said character is factored in when players are considered for induction.
"It's sort of an unwritten rule that if there's issues, steer away from them," he said.
From the Pro Football Hall of Fame's website:Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
So, sorry, but you're totally wrong.Quote:
The Mission of the Pro Football Hall of Fame is:
To honor, preserve, educate and promote. . .
To honor individuals who have made outstanding contributions to professional football
To preserve professional football’s historic documents and artifacts
To educate the public regarding the origin, development and growth of professional football as an important part of American culture
To promote the positive values of the sport
Not the same argument at all. I don't get how you can relate the "played best in September" argument to an argument that a murderer shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, which has a mission statement that leaves room for judgment of character.Quote:
This 'argument' reminds me of the tired argument of what the MVP stands for. Look MVP is who was the best, not who's team made it to the playoffs and who played the best in september.
It's not "stupid" at all. Voting for an MVP candidate because he hit a bunch of home runs in September or "willed his team to the playoffs" is stupid because it ignores the definition of "Most Valuable Player for the season." Making an argument that a murderer and complete thug of a person shouldn't be in a Hall of Fame is more a matter of opinion, so it can't really be "stupid."Quote:
Just like the HOF is who was really good at the sport, nothing else.
Especially since the rules to get in to the HOF state nothing about someones 'character'. If it had been then sure, but because its not it seems stupid to go back and take someone out.
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/Se...ProcessFAQ.jspQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
or
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.jsp
may asnwer your questions better than i can word it at least.
2 things:Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
1) This article was about removal from the COLLEGE Football Hall of Fame.
2) The article says:
Quote:
The Pro Football Hall of Fame only considers a player's on-field accomplishments, so Simpson is in no danger of being removed from there. The Bills have said they will follow the Hall of Fame's lead and have no plans remove Simpson from its Wall of Fame.
College, huh? Even more clearcut then. According to THEIR website:
Quote:
The NFF (National Football Foundation) seeks to honor those who have excelled both on and off the field and who demonstrate the Foundation's creed of scholarship, citizenship and athletic ability...
Each player nominated must have: (1) received major first-team All-America recognition; (2) played his last intercollegiate game at least 10 years previously; (3) retired from playing professional football; and (4) proven himself worthy as a citizen after his football career, carrying the ideals of football forward into his community.
Fair enough, but then it goes back to a matter of opinion, as I said here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I agree. The Hall of Fame(s) should ONLY be about contributions to the sport, not anything outside of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Well, the thing that makes collegiate athletics different is that character is much more of a focus. So the standards those HOFers are held to are much different standards than professionals are held to. So, although removing someone from a Hall of Fame may be disagreeable (and I agree with you on this point, in most cases), I think this is a VERY special case because of the nature of his actions, and because of college athletics being an environment that preaches good behavior off the field and in the community.
Furthermore, there's not really a matter of opinion of whether or not character should be judged if you're talking about COLLEGE sports, because they've spelled it out very clearly that they take character into account and place a lot of value on it, both when dealing with active players and when honoring players from the past. College sports are supposed to be part of a rounded curriculum... the idea is not to win at all costs, the idea is to teach. The things taught include values and ethics. Professional sports are on a different planet. Winning is a must, and winning is the goal, because it's a business.
That's not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
The thing about that paragraph though is nominated. He is not being nominated, he's already in the HOF and the paragraph, at least to me, infers that the 4th rule is what happens between the time of retiring and being inducted. If he is already inducted then I see no reason that those rules above should apply to anything now.
Honestly if they do remove him, I would not be surprised if they refine the rules quite a bit. I wonder if the rules they would make would apply to just murder because if they do refine the rules I think there gonna be even harder on future inductees. Just my thoughts though.
No, I mean like they should not let outside stuff influence removing him. Or anything remove him.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I disagree with RSR on this point - and with Houston on his, entirely different, point.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
There is no good reason, in my opinion, to limit the attention of HOF voters to on-field accomplishments. While I agree with Rongar that players shouldn't be kept out for minor transgressions - I think that players that would bring negative attention to the Hall of Fame can very reasonably be kept out. I think this should just be left in the hands of the voters.
As for removing players - why not? If Pete Rose had been admitted before anyone found out about his gambling - should he be permitted to remain? Does it matter if the 'bad act' occurs or is discovered before or after retirement, or before or after induction? There is probably no official process for removing a player from either HOF - but I can't object to the idea.
Ty Cobb killed a man, do you think he should be removed?Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
The first part has nothing to do with nomination at all, though. The first part is the NFF's mission statement, and having OJ Simpson associated with their organization goes against that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
As for the nomination part, I can't imagine that, when writing this, they took into account that someone would, 20+ years down the road, commit some heinous crimes, but they decided to leave out the ability to REMOVE a player in the event of this happening. I don't think they foresaw players being good citizens for 10 years and then turning bad.
I'm sure that they'd apply the rules for nomination to players who have already been inducted. And I'm sure they would rewrite their rules to state that they will hold past inductees to the same standards as nominees.
After all, the people in charge of it can make the decision to change wording and policy. It isn't like it's state or federal law, where someone can scrape by on semantics.
I don't disagree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
In this hypothetical, yes, I do think Rose should be permitted to remain. The reason he is not currently in isn't because of the character clause. It's because he received a lifetime ban, which disqualifies one from induction. Had he not been banned and had he made it in, only to later receive a lifetime ban, I do not think he should have his induction retroactively disqualified. Of course, there's no precedent for this either way, but that's just my opinion.Quote:
As for removing players - why not? If Pete Rose had been admitted before anyone found out about his gambling - should he be permitted to remain? Does it matter if the 'bad act' occurs or is discovered before or after retirement, or before or after induction? There is probably no official process for removing a player from either HOF - but I can't object to the idea.
Is there any evidence that this actually happened? A quick Google search only finds a bunch of articles that seem to indicate that he didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
You're right. But, the evidence is overwhelming that Cobb was a real dick, often assaulted people including fans, etc. Not exactly an upstanding citizen and example of good character, regardless of whether or not he actually killed anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
I know he was an ass - and I think that should have been taken into account when people voted. In my mind it isn't enough to keep him out. My argument is not that a player has to be a model citizen to make the HOF - but that voters can and should take everything into account when deciding on who to vote for.
Story confused. Ibelieev you are referring to his mother shooting his father thinking he was a burgaler, then again he did marry her I believe at 12 and had ty when she was 16
I don't disagree with this, but if I owned my own business, and an "average Joe" who worked for me was accused of killing 2 people, and the evidence against him was the same as the evidence against OJ, but he was aquitted, I'd fire him anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongar
On the other hand, if that guy had won my "Employee of the Month" award at some time in the past, I wouldn't take his name off the plaque, either.
I'm hesitant to say that anyone should be removed from any HoF once inducted. All of them have standards for induction, buy AFAIK, none of them have any procedure to romove anyone. And without a set procedure in place, it would be too arbitrary.
Yeah, but that guy was a Yankee fan so everyone naturally figured that he deserved it, and no charges were filed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
IF they were to remove him, I think it's only fair to have the voting committee decide it with a vote. They decide who goes in, they can decide if he should be taken out.