Many of you know I'm not happy getting only 18/32 votes on our last HOF ballot, especially since no player got the required 75%. I'm not shy about borrowing from other leagues, so I'd like to try what CJ does in his XFL league. There, he has a committee of 4 that vote, and if a player is named on 3 of the ballots, he's in.

For our league, we could do this with either 4, 6, or 8, depending on interest. I would obviously take 1 of the spots, and while I literally just brought this up minutes ago via PM, tribewriter should be 1 as well when his health allows. For you newer owners, tribewriter created this league and started the HOF before he left the league due to real life. He is back and deserves a spot reserved for him.

So I guess I'm looking for between 2 and 6 volunteers to serve on the committee. If you want to volunteer, either PM me or post here. I'm not sure exactly when the vote will take place, as I have to look over who retired before this season to see if anyone gets added to the list, and I'm also going to wait on tribewriter to get over Covid.

I think those with the most tenure in the league should get the first shot at being on the committee.

With that being said, I've been in the league 10 seasons and I don't know where I stand tenure wise but would like to volunteer for a spot on the committee.

Thanks

Isn't 18 voting better than 4, 8 or 12?

Having a committee doesn't increase participation in the voting.

I don't understand the purpose of this unless the goal is to prevent certain owners from voting, which is good with me and probably a good idea to restrict voting to just veterans.

I did it in my league to make the voting standardized. Getting 75% of the vote changes the bar dependent on how many owners vote.

You never get full participation so it means 15, 18, 22 or 27 owners might vote meaning it would take 11.25, 13.5, 16.5 or 20.25 votes respectively to reach 75%. Do you round up or down? It would be great if 32 voted came and you needed 24 votes but it never happens.

I elected vetetan/active owners who are reliable to form a committee so it's a standard. 3 out of 4 votes.

I forget how many ballots ago it was, but the year Mario Valencia got in was the vote that got me thinking of another way to do this.

We had 27 votes then, but the problem was the lack of votes for the other players. When Robinzine retired, he was #1 in TDs, #1 in receiving TDs, #2 in receptions and #3 in receiving yards. How in the heck does he only get 16/27 votes??? Leroy Selmon retired as the #1 TE in receiving yards and TDs while John Murray retired as the USFL All Time leading rusher. They both were barely over 50%.

That tells me either the system is flawed or some people don't take the HOF vote seriously, or maybe a bit of both. If I reduce the voters to volunteers, I'll know these people are taking it seriously. I chose the XFL method because it works in that league.

On top of that, if I reduce the number of voters, I don't have to actually build a survey. I would just send a list of players via a few PMs and I won't get offended by any lack of participation.

I am totally open to suggestions! If anyone can think of a better way to do this, please let me know.

I may be in the minority here, so feel free to ignore this post. I think the reason why HOF ballots, and All Pro ballots for that matter, don't get more participation is there remains turnover in the league despite how good the league is. And the active players that stay with the league are not invested in digging into the details of players that are not their own.

Look, I love this league, which it is why it is one of the few that I'm in despite having less and less time each week for it (I'm vacation this week which is the only reason I'm posting anything now). And one of the reasons that I love the league is the content that gets generated (the blog remains top notch and the voting at the end of the season (which I makes sure to do) adds fun extras.

That said, I don't think many owners are going to vote on HoF ballots because they haven't watched the same players year after year. For instance, my first draft class for when I took over Portland is just now reaching their slow down period, but they aren't going to start retiring for 2-4 more seasons if not more. My Houston draft class from when I rebuilt that boogered team (pun definitely intended) is just now reaching HoF age, and it was really O-Taco and Fred that they got their stats from.

In short, I think you should decide on a committee to do HoF, and that committee should be from folks dedicated to the details of the league like you are. Your analysis of why those players should have made a HoF is spot on. If you can find 3-4 folks dedicated to that level of analysis and that have been in the league to watch those players, I think the HoF would be much more interesting for folks that only have the time to dedicate to their own teams but are interested in where their players end up.

im not good coach im not long term veteran but if no one steps up ill be only to happy to help out,wont be offended at all if you get more experienced longer tenured guys

I think you are on the right track Seth. I don't discount the owner turnover factor, but I think not following all the players is the biggest problem. Before I go further, I don't expect anyone else to have the same knowledge of all the players like I do. Writing the blog every week has me familiar with many, many players on every team. In leagues where I am not the commish, I do not have the same knowledge across those leagues. When I vote in CJ's XFL, I go by the stats he provides.

You have won 10 games with a roster you built in a very tough, competitive league. You can no longer say you are not a good coach.

We could do it like always and relax the 75% rule. The year Valencia got in, I put the next 4 in as well because I felt they deserved it, and they were at the top of the list for most votes.