It's becoming increasingly clear to me that there is something wrong with a process that turns the decision over HOF admission to 44 sports writers or mediots, who are beholden (for access, interviews and their very livelihood) to the teams on whose players they are going to vote for admission. Many of these electors have been on the committee for years, if not decades.
The entire process is incestuous, dishonest and heavily tilted towards large media markets or specific teams' markets.
The "At Large" electors are all from major markets; Florida has four votes (two in Miami); New York has two votes; Pennsylvania has two votes; the Bay Area has two votes; Texas has two votes; Green Bay and Chicago combine for two very proximate votes in Illinois and Wisconsin; Cincinnati and Cleveland each have a vote in Ohio...but the entire New England region has one vote. You are not going to convince me that someone is more inclined to vote for players whom he has followed closely for years.
Imagine, for example, the direct or subtle pressure that can be brought to bear on a Peter King by teams whose alumni are up for consideration; the quality of his columns and TV spots is a direct function of his ability to get information that you and I do not have about teams and players and then make beaucoup
bucks by packaging and disseminating that information on SI and ESPN. The fact that Peter King himself might be purer than Caesar's wife is irrelevant; the potential for corruption and unfairness is just too great.
That is more or less the definition of a "corrupt system."