SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThis2010 HOF Ballot with Stats
We have produced a summary of the players, coaches, and execs who are semi-finalists for election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2010. Our list of Hall of Fame players is here.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am and is filed under Announcements, General, HOF, P-F-R News, Site Features. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
If ever there was a year for seven players to make it in - not counting the senior candidates and "contributors" - this is that year. There are sure to be many disgruntled players and fans when the final tallies come in.
The vote should be on who should replace the idiots that make the selections. Their petty biases and prejudices that keep them from focusing on players' on-field achievements make me sick.
As long as they are willing to let a player's greatness be determined by his teammates' skills rather than his own (which is what you're doing when you let the number of rings be the determining factor), they're not doing their job and should turn it over to someone who's willing and able.
Definitely some very deserving candidates. The one that sticks out to me being passed over is Tagliabue. He oversaw the period where the NFL became THE pre-eminent sport in the U.S. I don't know the exact numbers, but the growth of the sport was unprecedented in terms of popularity and revenue. I seem to remember Joe Montana being the highest paid player in the league at $3M/yr in 1990. Now, there are backups making close to that.
IMO - No way is Tagliabue worthy of a bust in Canton. It was Pete Rozelle's era that saw unprecedented growth, not Tagliabue's. Rozelle's accomplishments will always dwarf those of commissioners that came after him so it is easy for me to criticize. But I can't think of one great thing that Tagliabue did singly that would make him worthy of even being considered. Gene Upshaw was the one who helped players' salaries escalate, not Tagliabue.
For him to get the nod over great players would be a travesty.
How many strikes were there during Rozelle's time compared to Tagliabue? Rozelle certainly brought the NFL to the brink of greatness, but Tagliabue got it over the top. Players salaries escalated so much because of the revenue growth that led to an ever increasing salary cap.
Re #2:
Actually, there has been a trend recently of players without rings being elected more often. Out of the 48 players elected in the 2000s, 23 never won a championship. Compare that to 18/41 in the 90s, 11/44 in the 80s, 10/39 in the 70s, etc.
Re: Tagliabue versus Rozelle. All you have to do is look at the progression during their stewardship to know that Rozelle's contributions to the game were far more dramatic than Tagliabue's.
Television and revenue from TV contracts skyrocketed during Pete's tenure. So did ticket prices, attendance, TV ratings. Monday night football was Rozelle's idea - even before Roone Arledge of ABC came along as a catalyst. The merger with the AFL came under Rozelle. The list is endless.
Football peaked in popularity during Pete's era, not Tagliabue's. And again, if you want to judge commissioners primarily for maintaining peace and harmony during management-labor talks and CBAs credit has already been given to Gene Upshaw for his integral part. Tagliabue deserves his fair share too, but is it Hall-worthy merely by itself?
During Rozelle's time it was folks like Ed Garvey who had as much to do with the strikes than any failings on Rozelle's part. It wasn't until 1983 that Gene Upshaw became the executive director of the NFLPA. And Pete was plenty busy during those years handling the likes of rogues like Al Davis moving his team out of town and litigating against the league.
Maybe Tagliabue belongs in some lawyer's Hall of Fame, but I can think of many deserving football players who should get into Canton before him. (My strong opinion, obviously).
You seem to think that I have a low opinion of Rozelle's time as commissioner. I don't. I think that Rozelle did an excellent job. But, they oversaw two different periods. Rozelle certainly laid much of the groundwork, getting TV deals and the like. But, to say that it peaked in popularity simply doesn't line up with the facts. In the 80's, the NFL was just becoming arguably as popular as MLB. Now, it has clearly surpassed all American sports in popularity. I would also be interested in seeing the numbers in revenue growth for the NFL from 1960 through today, if you know where to find them. I just know that top salaries have more than tripled, and I believe that the salary cap has also more than tripled, since the beginning of free agency to today. That increase in player salary has much more to do with the increase in NFL revenues than in any component of the CBA that Upshaw obtained.
I'll take this debate over Rozelle and Tagliabue piece by piece as time allows.
Re: FB and BB popularity: I had watched the five-part series on the history of the AFL on Showtime this past summer/fall and they indicated that pro football had eclipsed baseball (and all other sports) in popularity in the MID-1960s - not TODAY. I will recheck that statement as I have it all on DVD, but I have reason to believe that a well-researched show like that would not make such a claim if it weren't true or backed up by hard numbers.
I am old enough to remember the 1960s and without question pro football was more popular than MLB during that latter part of that decade, if not sooner. Look at the TV ratings football was getting. All the Super Bowls. From Super Bowl I to Super Bowl XXII, the last in which Rozelle was commisioner, the number of persons in the US watching on TV went from roughly 40 million to 81.5 million. It doubled. (The highest it's ever been was 97.5 million for the Pats-Giants SB).
Nielsen ratings went from a 22.6 for SB I to 43.5 for SB XXII. A quick look at BB's World Series ratings (try Wiki) does not even compare with FB, although I don't have exact figures before 1984.
Ticket prices for regular season pro football games went from $5 around the time of 1966 to $25 around the time of 1989. Increased five-fold. Super Bowl tickets went from a range of $6-$12 for the first game to $100 in the 22nd SB. Ten fold increase.
I'll cut to the chase here. Maybe the Hall of Fame wishes to induct its past commissioners as some sort of courtesy. If that's true I wish they would exclude them from competing against worthy players who only get a small window in which to get elected.
That being said, I can't find any compelling reason why Tagliabue deserves to be enshrined over the likes of the players on the ballot. I point out Rozelle because the growth of the game was astronomical under his tutelage. Rozelle began as a PR man for the Rams so his roots were in football before he took the office of commissioner.
Maybe more research needs to be done on Tagliabue if his name keeps coming up every year, but I know I am not alone (at least one Hall voter agrees) in thinking that he doesn't have the justification for a bust in Canton.
Ben,
You're right about there being more inductees without rings than with. But that's more a function of the number of teams in the league than open-mindedness on the part of the committee. Of players who are likely to attract HoF attention, there were way more who finished their careers with a ring in the 12 team era than the 26 team era.
My objection is that players who don't play for winning teams don't get a fair shake. The non-ring bearing inductees were all pretty much slam-dunks. Derrick Thomas is the only one in the bunch where there was ever any serious debate, that I can recall at least.
Michael Irvin is, I think, a legit HoF'er, but he strikes me as someone where a case needed to be built. And Aikman? Please. The worst of the worst for me is Lynn Swann. If he's one of the greatest receivers ever, catching balls from one of the greatest quarterbacks ever, with one of the greatest lines ever, and one of the best running backs ever, shouldn't he have, I don't know, maybe led the league in some receiving category a couple of times? Shouldn't his numbers have gotten better, not worse, when they changed the rules to open up the passing game? Shouldn't he have been a meaningful contributor at least through his TWENTIES, for God's sake? Most HoF receivers put up solid numbers well into their thirties, but Swann was basically done at 28, having had three good seasons and a few so-so seasons.
How is Michael Irvin a third-try inductee, when Harold Jackson, who had a different quarterback almost every year, put up similar numbers (and more TDs) in the dead ball era, is out? Or Cris Carter, who has twice Irvin's TD's, 2 all-pro's to his 1, 8 pro bowls to his 5. Can somebody give some kind of rational explanation (and I emphasize RATIONAL) for this, 'cuz I sure as heck can't think of one.
Patrick,
You're right about almost everything you say, but the acid test for admission for a commissioner isn't Pete Rozelle. You have to remember that Bert Bell is in as well, and Tags certainly contributed WAY more than Bell did.
They obviously haven't decided to put all of the commissioners in.... The family of Elmer Layden, for example, isn't expecting a call from Canton any time soon. Or ever.
Jeremy I agree with you. Rozelle isn't the barometric threshold for a commissioner to get into the hall. It should be the least regarded commissioner who is already in the hall whom other commissioners should be compared to when considering hall-worthiness.
But given that Bert Bell is in and Tagliabue might rate ahead of him, does that mean Tagliabue has to go in (in the interest of fariness) ahead of players who played the game and are worthy of a spot? I would hope not. More wrongs don't make a right (something like that).
I focus on Rozelle because in the interest of fairness regarding a former commissioner's candidacy, given that he has to compete against football players like Rozelle did when he was elected, the gold standard OUGHT to be Rozelle and not Bell. But I firmly believe that "contributors" should be in a separate category that does not interfere with ex-players being vetted for the hall.
I have no beefs against Tagliabue. He looked good in his Hawaiian shirts at the Pro Bowl. I just think there are plenty of ex-players out there who would look even better.
Maybe PFR can do a podcast on the prospective Hall of Fame class of 2010 during Super Bowl week.
With Rice and Emmitt getting two spots and the two senior's committee candidates occupying two spots (subtracting two from the maximum of seven slots) that leaves just three open spots for the rest, among whom I believe there are at least half a dozen HoF- caliber players.
There will be very little drama this year with the selections, but a lot of anger at this process.
Larry I'm not sure Tagliabue will get in anytime soon. It seems that a lot of 'football' people hold it against him that he lost two teams in LosAngeles.
BTW.. just a side note.. Larry was commenting on Montana's salary from 1990 (I remember when he got the extension).. how much u guys think he would be worth today? Sheesh.. Eli Manning money at least!
Jeremy, I can tell you rationally why Lynn Swann is in the Hall of Fame... he was GREAT in the Super Bowl. I'm not agreeing with it, in fact I don't think you can judge a player soely on the Super Bowl. If we did that, then a guy like Jim Plunkett is a Hall of Famer (sorry folks, he's not. Nice player, not a Hall of Famer, and neither is Bob Griese).
Maybe NFL films has alot to do with why Swann is in the Hall of Fame. We always see his highlights pop up once January comes around. So his acrobatics are etched in our minds. Especially the catch in Super Bowl 10. What people don't remember is, that play led to a missed FG. Nice play, had nothing to do with the outcome however.
Lynn Swann, great in a big moment. My personal opinion..he is too soft to be a Hall of Famer. It's the same argument I use for Andre Reed. Too soft. Just look at the Giants/Bills Super Bowl (there we go again judging a player by a Super Bowl performance).
We can't help ourselves now can we?
With all of this said.. if Swann is a Hall of Famer.. then John Taylor of the 49ers should be. He was a much better WR than Swann ever was.
No doubt Lynn Swann's levitating leap had impact, as far as memory is concerned, on the voters minds. I agree he doesn't belong.
But I've got to wonder if Namath didn't win Super Bowl III he probably wouldn't be in the Hall either. His stats are pedestrian as an aggregate. But teams had to prepare for him - even after the merger.
Patrick (9), That is the first time I've heard that football had clearly surpassed baseball in popularity by the 60's. I think one of the reasons for that is that baseball fans would argue that you can't just go by TV ratings or per game attendance, since baseball has so many more games. Also, the growth you site during Rozelle's time is impressive, but there are no numbers for Tagliabue's time for comparison. Just as you're going by a Showtime show, I base my thoughts on what I've heard during games or pre-game shows. I do know that the largest increase in NFL revenue during Tagliabue's time had more to do with the TV contracts than ticket prices. At least every story that I remember reading said that increases in the salary cap were due to increased TV revenues. BTW, I do agree with you about having a separate "contributor" category for HOF inductions, so as not to take away spots from deserving players. Dave (14), I think you're right about the issue with LA.
Swann and Namath: Here are my thoughts on why they are in. First, Namath is in simply because SB III may be the single most significant game in the development of the NFL as we know it. It legitimized the AFL teams. For Swann, I think that although his numbers were nothing compared to todays WRs, his performance in big games made him an integral part of the NFL narrative in the 70s. Certainly, the fact that he has two of the most famous catches in NFL history has a lot to do with that. To a degree, I think that career statistics should be considered, but I also think that one should look at the impact that a player had on big games. In Swann's case, it's not like we're talking about a Timmy Smith situation where his one great game happened to be in the SB. He had big moments in 3 separate SBs. John Taylor isn't in mainly because he was so private in his private life. He never drew attention to himself. I think he deserves consideration, though.
Larry, you are correct that NFL revenues and revenue increases are predominantly due to $ amounts on TV contracts and not so much ticket sales. There's no disputing that.
TV contracts are based on ratings and what the negotiating parties think advertisers are willing to pay. The movie "Monday Night Mayhem" dramatized the negotiations between Pete Rozelle and Roone Arledge back when MNF became the rage in 1970. In it, Rozelle knew what ABC could get in selling commercial spots and Pete based his price tag for the rights (to MNF) to Roone on that. So that's why I point out TV ratings in addressing football's popularity and the skyrocketing increases during the Rozelle era.
Re: Super Bowl viewers (in the U.S.): Under Rozelle it went from 40 to 92.5 million (for SB 20 with Bears-Pats) and back to 81.5 when he resigned. Under Tagliabue it started at 81.5 million but never reached higher than 94.1 and stayed mostly in the 80s. That's why I say things (viewership) really plateaued during the Rozelle years and not the Tagliabue years.
Patrick, Good point. I guess the only caveat I would add on ratings is that during the Rozelle years, there were at most about 30 channels. Ever since cable has expanded so much, the major networks have all seen significant ratings declines to most shows. Now, with the internet, people are able to watch games online, which has probably further eroded the TV ratings, although NFL popularity as a whole is likely still higher than any time in the past. I say likely due to the growth of fantasy football, draft previews, etc. that you never saw 20 years ago.
Larry.. Odds are John Taylor would never get in to the HOF. He had 3 dominant seasons ('89-91) and in '92 he broke his leg and he was never the same and retired in '95.
He is one of those players that if you watched him alot..he passed the eye exam "I know a Hall of Famer when I see one" but that doesn't always get you in. If it did, Roger Craig would have been in years ago.
Dave, I agree. I don't think Taylor is even getting any consideration. But, I do think that a large part of that is due to his personality. He never wanted to be a "star." I read an article on him about that, how he never sought out the cameras on the sidelines, and he really didn't want people to recognize him on the streets. In his best years, he was probably the number 2 WR in the league.
Re Taylor: Context means everything in this case. He was without a doubt never the best receiver on his own team (granted, no one else would have been better than Jerry Rice, either.) He had few excellent seasons and rarely finished in the top 10 of any receiving category. No 1st team All-Pro selections.
Swann has him beat in all of those, and his playoff numbers are better too, in one less game played.
In another era or on another team he could have been thought of as an all time great, but that didn't happen.
Larry, I don't believe his avoiding the spotlight is a factor. If his numbers had been higher, the acclaim would have followed. Take Marvin Harrison.
It's not just LA that people are upset with Tagliabue about. Baltimore *hates* him, for his "go build a museum" comment during the period Baltimore was without a team. So the Baltimore Hall voter(s) is not in Tags' corner.
Swann is in the Hall because he epitomized a new grace and athleticism that we take for granted from receivers now. It didn't hurt that he made great plays in Super Bowls, but he'd make those catches on October Sundays in Cleveland, too.
I keep reading that the voters want to see what happens with the next CBA before they come any conclusion about Tagliabue. The last deal, which included the extra revenue sharing that was just discontinued, is apparently regarded as an unstable situation that could fall completely apart.
Pete Rozelle was not elected to the HoF until his 8th time as a finalist. Was Paul Tagliabue significantly more deserving, enough to merit being elected sooner?