O.J. Simpson could lose Hall of Fame status

[HoustonGM]

Fair enough, but then it goes back to a matter of opinion, as I said here:

I'm never in favor of removing somebody from any Hall

[RedsoxRockies]

Fair enough, but then it goes back to a matter of opinion, as I said here:

I agree. The Hall of Fame(s) should ONLY be about contributions to the sport, not anything outside of it.

[justanewguy]

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.

[HoustonGM]

I agree. The Hall of Fame(s) should ONLY be about contributions to the sport, not anything outside of it.

That's not what I said.

[200tang]

College, huh? Even more clearcut then. According to THEIR website:

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.

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.

[RedsoxRockies]

That's not what I said.

No, I mean like they should not let outside stuff influence removing him. Or anything remove him.

[kenny1234]

I agree. The Hall of Fame(s) should ONLY be about contributions to the sport, not anything outside of it.

I disagree with RSR on this point - and with Houston on his, entirely different, point.

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.

[RedsoxRockies]

I disagree with RSR on this point - and with Houston on his, entirely different, point.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

I don't disagree with this.

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.

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.

[kenny1234]

Ty Cobb killed a man, do you think he should be removed?

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

[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.

[TheNamelessPoet]

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

[dps]

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.

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.

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.