Throwdowns > Completed

Views
6
Comments
25
  • September 18, 2007 11:16 AM ET

Should the HoF be able to remove players?

B0mb3rs (HoF) (307-205-19) vs Big Ben68 (38-4-0)
11
Votes
24
Votes
11
Votes
24
Votes


One example pops straight into my mind. OJ. His actions are an embarrasment to himself, the league, and as if they needed more problems the Bills. Should the HoF be able to remove players, if their actions deem it? Take a side I will take the other.


Bombers, when inducting a player into the Hall of Fame ONLY on field actions and stats are taken into account. ALL off field actions are not even in consideration when deciding the merit of a player up for vote to the Hall of Fame. Take Michael Irvin for example. He had the cocaine as well as other drug problems, the legal trouble, and the women. If he got in with all the crap he has done, then I'm pretty sure O.J. Simpson should STAY in the Hall of Fame, especially since he was acquitted of the charges. This recent ???spat??? he has had with the law does not tarnish what he did as a Buffalo Bill from 1969 to 1977 (and a two year stint in San Francisco at the end of his career). He had 11,236 rushing yards and 2,142 receiving yards (on 203 receptions). Personally, I think once enshrined into the Hall of Fame you shouldn???t be removed and the ability to remove someone should NOT even be an option for the Hall of Fame committee. Being removed from the Hall of Fame would be like a team winning the Super Bowl and then because afterwards (or before as in the past) they acted like fools and did something incredibly stupid they had it taken away.

MORE IN COMMENTS


What if the team was shown to have cheated, would you take away the victory then? Just wondering. I was driving, laughing again because this OJ thing is just plain weird. Ok so I get your point, but to play Devil's advocate for a mintue, the NFL is super concerened about it's "Brand". Everytime I hear them talk about OJ they say Hall Of Fame running back OJ Simpson. TO casual fans and those outside of football do they associate his actions with being a football player? I say yes, everything he does will still be assoiciated with his playing in the NFL. Irivin got in based of his career too, but he cleaned his act up and was not in repeated trouble since his enshrinement. I think his actions since his retirment have been at least legally ok (though I still hate him). What about an "OJ rule" where a player can be nominated to be expelled if his actions of the field have been shown to be deterimental to the game. Then the voters would decide if he should stay....Plus it also punishes OJ from a finacial standpoint, he wouldn't be able to sign HoF anymore.


It wouldn???t make sense to retain Irvin (or to have even allowed him in) and remove O.J. Simpson. It would just be unintelligent on the part of the Hall of Fame Committee. Irvin was actually screwing up DURING his career, which was, obviously, prior to being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Based upon your criteria he SHOULDN???T even be in or should be removed. O.J. was inducted BEFORE his legal troubles (and had none during his career unlike Irvin). People don???t always necessarily associate someone who played football automatically with football. That sounds weird, but it is true. I say no because him playing and him being in court are VERY different. It isn???t like he is juking jury members and trucking bailiffs. I don???t think any kind of removal process should be implemented into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, there is no need for it. Simpson was not associated with these legal troubles of the last decade or so, but before that was known as ???The Juice???.


Dude the trucking baliffs statement had me laughing. My point is this. Yes players are put in and their actions on and off the field are weighed. However once a player is in they can never get the boot? For the majority of players this is never a concern. However these days it should be. A reevaluation vote would allow folks to weigh both the on field and off field actions and vote to keep or boot. In OJ's case eveyone associates him with the NFL. Well that and his other troubles. The OJ rule would be good for America, football, and mankind as a whole. It shows we care more about the character of a person then what they accomplish on the field. It would show we still stand for Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. To not put in the OJ rule would be down right AntiAmerican and would enbolden the terrorists, and our enemies. Do it for your country, do it for our futures, do it for mankind's soul.


Are you kidding me!? That whole last part just doesn???t fit in with this topic. The Hall of Fame is meant to honor the on field accomplishments of players NOT what they do off the field. O.J. Simpson was an outstanding running back during his career and his off the field troubles came after the cleats were stowed in away in his closet (or in the guy who had his memorabilia???s closet). Anyway, inputting such a rule would only serve to remove ONE player, which makes no sense. O.J.???s legal troubles started at least 15 some years after his career was finished. The man deserves to be in the Hall of Fame no matter what he does, removing him would just be downright rude and nonsensical. Also, that whole last part just doesn???t make sense. Keeping O.J. in the Hall of Fame isn???t at all Anti-American or terrorist associated. It really isn???t stopping Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; I don???t really see how it does any of those EXCEPT for O.J. Simpson.

Comments (25) Add A Comment

September 18, 2007  11:18 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

no way HOF should not be removed. Off the field actions should go in to play when dealing with the hall anyways. It should be for performance ON the field. PUT ROSE IN!!!!!!!

September 18, 2007  11:20 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

nice this will be good, I kinda wanted to go with NO, but then I figured let's do a toss up TD and I will argue the other side...good luck Big ben...Hail to the redskins..hail

September 18, 2007  12:10 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

REST OF MY FIRST ARGUMENT:

It just isn???t really fair to take into account what he has done SINCE being enshrined. MAYBE, just MAYBE if it had been during or only a couple of years AFTER his retirement then it could have been an option to NOT enshrine him, but now it just ISN???T an option.

September 18, 2007  12:13 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

hmmmmmmm.......

I was thinking the same thing on my way to work this morning. Im gonna have to wait to vote though

September 18, 2007  12:31 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

My vote goes to Big Ben because I beleive that if the crime (i.e. misconduct) is committed during the time the player is still playing it should have an affect. If the behavior occurs after the induction, well that's a different story. The player was still in good standing during the time they played. Perhaps, they are not resposnsible for anything more. It is a tough call...

September 18, 2007  12:32 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Bombers...I'll have to make my next argument in an hour or more...I gotta go to my Engineering class...

This one could be interesting, but I'd like to say:

based upon your "rule" Irvin should be removed. He had his troubles DURING his career whereas Simpson has done stuff as an old man. His playing days MANY years behind him. Irvin hasn't been out of football for even a decade yet. I don't think you should take into consideration his POST-career troubles...

And obviously NO troubles with the law, drugs, etc are taken into account when voting players into the Hall of Fame. I don't really see a rule being put into place for ONE guy...

Just doesn't seem ethical or even fair...

September 18, 2007  12:34 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

cool have fun ....

September 18, 2007  01:39 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Some players can not even get voted on due to their off field activities, the player is banned for them. So, why not?

September 18, 2007  01:52 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Name one player that is currently up for possibility of being voted into the Hall of Fame that has had significant legal trouble, drug use, etc. off the field.

September 18, 2007  02:00 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

i thought you were in class :)

September 18, 2007  02:02 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Why "currently up for possibility of being voted into the Hall of Fame" and not just banned so as to never be eligible for discussion?

September 18, 2007  02:13 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

"Bombers, when inducting a player into the Hall of Fame ONLY on field actions and stats are taken into account. ALL off field actions are not even in consideration when deciding the merit of a player up for vote to the Hall of Fame."-ben

Pete Rose? ****?

September 18, 2007  03:15 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

He's more imfamous than famous, but OJ belongs in the Hall of Fame.

He also belongs in prison.

September 18, 2007  03:16 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

"infamous" lol...nice typo

September 18, 2007  09:22 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

PeavyFan, we are talking about the PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame...not the baseball hall of fame...they are different...

Also, I WAS in class...

I just had a couple minutes before we started...

September 19, 2007  12:14 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

This is ridiculous.

September 19, 2007  09:56 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

My vote: Big Ben, but I can understand why they would at least have the feelings of wanting someone pulled out.

September 19, 2007  09:59 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Ben it was a joke...hence why it didn't make sense....

September 19, 2007  10:02 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I think my joke was better...

And made sense in the arguments...

 
September 19, 2007  10:04 AM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

He he he....yoru jokes were funny...Rodger and I were discussing how the only people that read the last argument are the people in the TD and probably those of us in the Elites....we actually did one where the whole last argument was not in any way related to the topic, and made zero sense....it was pretty funny..no one ever commented on that...

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Leaderboard

  Fan W L T Win %
1 DetroitFan* BS: Start Stanton! 132 9 7 91.6%
2 Porkins: Catches bullets 138 13 1 91.1%
3 Baun-ded=PUCKHEAD 52 5 1 90.5%
4 The Ram 138 17 4 88.1%
5 Foosball 68 9 2 87.3%
6 Philly-- www.sportsnoise.com 74 11 4 85.4%
7 Hyped78 112 19 5 84.2%
8 Dookie: Here We Go Steelers 117 19 8 84.0%
9 [The] Coach 97 18 5 82.9%
10 BSchwartz07 129 27 6 81.5%

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Jerry tries to pep up sulking T.O.
    Views
    6598
    Comments
    1114
  2. 2
    Brewers considering run at Sabathia
    Views
    2928
    Comments
    494
  3. 3
    Lions will listen to offers for Williams
    Views
    18276
    Comments
    75
  4. 4
    Media angers Cowboys coach
    Views
    9199
    Comments
    65
  5. 5
    Kobe causes logjam at small forward
    Views
    7917
    Comments
    54

Weekly Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5

Message Boards

  1. MMA > Fight Club

    Kimbo Slice's loss ...…
    Views
    5707
    Replies
    23

  2. MMA > Fight Club

    What now for EliteXC?
    Views
    1458
    Replies
    10

  3. MMA > Fight Club

    Next face of EliteXC: Tito…
    Views
    1018
    Replies
    13

Blogs

SI.com

Swimsuit

Christina ParkerChristina Parker
Ireivy GuerraIreivy Guerra

SI Photos

Cheerleader of the WeekCheerleader of the Week
Best NFL shots from Week 5Best NFL shots from Week 5

SI Vault