NFL - NEWS & NOTES

HA! You know, I actually thought of that after I wrote it. But OJ was acquitted so he gets to stay... for now.

 

he was found guilty in the civil case and his 7 yr stint for his other crime. sorry he should be OUT!

 

Armed robbery... and kidnapping. Eligible for release on 01 OCT.

 

^yeah - he shouldn't be in the HOF anymore. HOF player. HOF scumbag too.

 

I agree, without going through the entire roster of members, Simpson and as much as I will be reviled and hated from my brethren..Jim Brown. He has never been convicted of a domestic violence crime, but my gosh, look at his history and it is blatantly obvious he is an abuser. If you get sued over that assumption, you can always point to his two convictions that are not directly called domestic abuse. I love what Brown did for the Browns back in the day, I wasn't around yet for what he did off the field..but now, he just shouldn't be revered as much as he is as a role model etc..

 

Its a tough subject with difficult calls to make. Imagine a HOF with no criminals or problem peeps and I'll show you a nearly empty Hall.

It is the Hall of 'Fame' after all, not the hall of 'goody two-shoes' or the Hall of 'Stats', but fame or infamous people in sports. Just throwing out some food for thought... and where do you draw the line on judging people to begin with?

Murder and sexual/physical abuse are one thing, but what do we do about the drugs and PED's and such? Scuffing baseballs even, lol. It just seems a bit too much to separate the good from the bad, but maybe just enshrine people for what they accomplished on the field. I don't know... its a tough call as I mentioned.

 

^^major crimes. heinous acts against another. baseball already won't allow in the PED users, so they their voters are basically doing the right thing. how they allowed know cheater gaylord perry in is beyond me. for the other sports - draw a line of where the crimes start and go from there.

 

Well, obviously it starts with what they did before getting in...Case by case basis, the committee has the avenue to debate it on the floor prior to induction. I can honestly say, if TO is being held out because of his "antics", then Moss should be, as well as MANY others...TO was an ass, but he never invoked violence or cheated in any way.

After the induction is much more difficult, however, I think they should be reviewed on an annual basis. I don't want to argue for or against what should be the criteria for being expelled..too much effort would be involved for something that most likely never happens.

 

My two cents;

A Hall of Fame (in ANY sport at ANY level) typically inducts players for their accomplishments ON THE FIELD OF PLAY. There are muddled lines to cross everywhere you look. MLB has excluded Pete Rose from Cooperstown for gambling whereas the NFL inducted Paul Hornung into their HoF even though he was suspended for the entire 1963 season for gambling.

In Jim Brown's case (inducted in 1971), there were multiple accusations made against him beginning as early as 1965. None those early accusations resulted in convictions. His first conviction wasn't until 1975 when he spent 6 months in jail - not for the crime but for refusing to abide with the terms of his probation. Since 1975, he was accused multiple times for domestic abuse but none of them resulted in a felony conviction. There is no doubt in my mind that Jim Brown was probably not a model partner in a relationship. Apparently he recognized that as well and often states that as the primary reason he became so involved in improving the family lives of inner city kids.

So, there is a precedent. Both Brown and Simpson were inducted into the HoF before their off field conduct became known.

 

One argument to bar them that holds weight is that sports and the business is about idols. It's not a great look to glorify them.

 

Apples and Oranges, Joe. You're talking about barring them from the HoF which infers that their off field behavior is known before they are voted in. In the cases of Brown and Simpson, they were both inducted before their off field behavior was published. And that brings an entirely new element into the equation. IF the volume of information available today (whether true or not) was available back in the 1960's or 70's, would the same people be inducted? I think not.

 

That was Joe... not Cat.

And I agree. With access to more info and media up everyone's asses 24/7, character issues would've been more of a thing back then. Unfortunately, I think the merits on the field are what matters most. Role models be damned!!!

 

Fixt

(Eagles fans. They all look alike to me.)

 

I'm not so sure, only based on the social indifference of that time period. Beating your wife was a crime and frowned upon, but the public backlash wasn't nearly as prominent. However, as you are saying, if "social media" were around, then yes, I could see your point. Just having information in the newspaper or what not, I don't think it mattered as much back then.

 

IF social media was around back then, I don't believe there would have been "social indifference". IMHO, social media is what fuels today's lack of social indifference.

 

yeah but im talking after they're done playing. take OJ Simpson - for his involvement and guilt in the civil trial is the moment he should be ousted from the NFL HOF and College Football HOF. He was accused of double murder. He was acquitted but found guilty in the civil trial and then his latest scrap with the police. sorry but he's out to me. if john elway runs over someone drunk out of his mind and kills them - to me he's out. sorry but you fail to live up to the standards of professionalism, human decency and the law!

and im a ND fan and damn right Hornung should be banned from the HOF for gambling. Pete Rose can't even get on the ballot to get into the HOF and Hornung has been sitting in there for 50 yrs!

 

I disagree. A civil trial is not criminal, so for me, that doesn't qualify. Anyone can sue anyone, property damage, etc. Hornung should stay in, but Pete Rose should be in the baseball hall. Sports accomplishments. That's what the HoF is about.

 

You can't ban OJ for murder. He was found not guilty. This is not a court of public opinion, and by the law he is innocent, lawsuits aren't criminal cases and would have zero baring on things like the HOF. If you are going to ban him for the crime in Las Vegas then you have to do a serious cleaning of the HOF. If they removed OJ from the HOF he would sue them and would wind up owning the HOF. The court of public opinion doesn't mean jack shit, unless you haven't been voted in yet.

 

^^ then let the legendary crumbs of the sports world in then! if you don't trust the court system's rulings - civil case or criminal or not - then fuck it and let them all stay in then! you gotta draw the line somewhere but if not willing to start at the court system then nothing will stick!

 

Now you're catching on.