Should NFL remove players from HOF?

[Satchboogie3]

People just need to learn that Athletes are regular people too. Some are good, some are bad, most are somewhere in between. Humans have a habit of putting people up on pedestals and worshiping them, just because they are great athletes doesn't mean they should be worshiped.

If I was an aspiring young athlete, I'd make sure to separate the sport from personal life. If their was a player who was amazing and I wanted to learn from/mimic, I'd do so, but it would only be what they do on the field, I wouldn't be worshiping them or anything. The guy might be totally despicable, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything to learn from him.

Also, we simply can't know the intentions of everyone. Everybody has skeletons in their closets, some a lot worse than others. We just have to remember people are human and someone who seems perfect could have a dark side or just end up down the wrong path later in life. Shows like "American Idol" certainly don't help to eliminate this problem.

Manny Ramirez is such a character for me. There have been rumors of him having locker-room and anger problems, etc etc. Do I care? No. I don't know him and I don't know what his personality is actually like. I watch him because he's an amazing hitter and I love his "antics" on the field. Short of being a convict, I don't care what he does off the field.

As for the HOF, I don't think it's intentions are just to "idolize" the top athletes as much as it is a record of the best players in the history of the sport. There will be some that were terrible human beings, but that doesn't erase what they did on the field. Hitler was evil, but that doesn't mean we should just erase his name and the Holocaust from history, I see no reason why we should do so in sports either.

 

[JR4]

no thats why i hate the baseball hall of fame cause they keeps guys like pete rose out the HOF is about what you did on the field not off of it.


and as fas as our kids wanting to be like rapist and killers in the HOF i mean come on it's our job to raise our kids right not some football player that gets paid millions

Pete Rose does not deserve to be honored along with the
players who played the game with courage and character
regardless of his stats.

Let Pete Rose be in the stat books but not in the HOF.
Taking the consequences of ones actions is what this is about.
This is something this country has forgotten to teach it's young.

If LT had any character and if he did what people say he did, he should
step up and request to be removed from the HOF saying ...
"for what I did I should not be among those honorable men."

 

[Joker]

Rose IS paying for his past transgressions...and paying dearly.

If Ty Cobb is in the Hall of Fame, so too should Pete Rose. His faults as a human being should play no part in what he did on the diamond. You start down this road and pretty soon you got about 200 or 300 members of the hall that should be removed.

 

[Fixit]

Pete Rose does not deserve to be honored along with the
players who played the game with courage and character
regardless of his stats.

Let Pete Rose be in the stat books but not in the HOF.
Taking the consequences of ones actions is what this is about.
This is something this country has forgotten to teach it's young.

If LT had any character and if he did what people say he did, he should
step up and request to be removed from the HOF saying ...
"for what I did I should not be among those honorable men."

I wish that every manager and player on every team that I root for bet on their own team to win.

Oh, and to answer the original question, hell, no. The HOF is only about how well you played the game. They don't take back Olympic medals if you're an a-hole, only if they found out you cheated, in which case I'm fine with HOF removal. But sportswriters voting on morality? Give unto me a break.

 

[Boston Boxer]

The NFL is suppose to representative of the best the NFL has had.
When a player commits a crime or brings great disgrace to their name
and that player in Canton HOF should the NFL have the right to remove
such players?

I know this is a debate else way so I wanted to see what you all think.
LT is just latest but there are others.

LT has never been an upstanding person off the field ever, so i would think no. When i heard the report on LT the other day my reaction was "meh, i could see that". The guy is a substance abuser and just a bad human being that has some problem he needs help for. On the field he was awesome.

 

[eagle eye]

What a silly thread.

The Hall of Fame is about honoring those who were brillaint footballers. Its got nothing to do with anything else and to even suggest that somebody should be removed for things that were not related to their on the field activities is ludicrous.

This for me is the same thing as suggesting that an average footballer who has great achievements that have nothing to do with football should be in the hall.

As far as suggesting that if somebody is in the hall with a criminal record they should be removed, I say its a good lesson for those that come after to learn that being a pro-footballer doesn't mean you don't have to work at other parts of your life.

 

[MassPats38]

If character doesn't matter once you get into the HOF then why not apply
the same logic to the active players of the NFL.
Once you make a NFL roster character doesn't matter. But we do
know it matters. If a player is bad enough he can get suspended
indefinitely.

Character matters going into the HOF, why shouldn't it matter once one
is there? NFL heroes should be someone you can point a young man at
and say ... see what he did ... you can be like him. I know it is not
often possible but in extreme cases the NFL should step up and say
this is not what we represent or condone and do something about it.

That's apples and oranges. A player can be a huge jerk, even a criminal jerk, and remain on a team. It is only when his conduct rises to the level that a team or the Commissioner suspends him that character is an issue. If a player is not on the field, then he will not accrue statistics and never will be a Hall candidate. That player is also a liability as he represents a high cost with minimal return given games played, so his absence is likely what will compel his release, not his lack of character. Highly talented players can absorb huge character hits and still play the game at an elite level. Teams tire quickly of players with character issues who are not considered elite. If the elite player is on the field and performing, character is not an issue. How many character issues did Larry Johnson, Romanowski and the Championship Cowboys teams have before anything happened to those guys when playing at elite levels? You are kidding yourself if you believe character trumps skill in the NFL. Teams want to win. This is not Pee Wee football and a demonstration of sportsmanship.

And character matters in HOF selection? It is the last line on the resume. Name me one player who got in on character rather than numbers and results/championships. I cannot think of one. Staubach likely had character, but that was incidental to his election as he had statistics, winning seasons, big games and a Super Bowl MVP. Would Michael Irvin be a character guy in your opinion? And Lawrence Taylor was acknowledged to be a raging coke addict while playing, but that was offset by a talent that made him likely the greatest defensive player ever. The difference between then and now is not that players are worse, but rather that the 24/7 media does not leave stone unturned. Ty Cobb was not a great character guy, nor was Babe Ruth. Their stories are not unique among the hall members of all sports. Stop watching "When It Was a Game" and start reading some of their biographies. Not exactly heroic stuff that you want your kids to mimic.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

The NFL is suppose to representative of the best the NFL has had.
When a player commits a crime or brings great disgrace to their name
and that player in Canton HOF should the NFL have the right to remove
such players?

I know this is a debate else way so I wanted to see what you all think.
LT is just latest but there are others.

I understand what you're saying after reading through this thread. However, I don't like the idea of kicking players out of the HOF for post-career problems.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that football players can do whatever they want after they retire as long as they were good when they played. I think most just feel that on-field performance is what counts in getting enshrined. (as long as they didn't cheat)

I certainly don't like hearing that LT did this. If he's found guilty, he should go to prison. It doesn't change the fact though that he was the greatest LB of all-time. That's what he's in the HOF for.

As it is, what does kicking him out really do? What message does it send? Do you think any player would then think twice about commiting a crime for fear of being booted out of the hall, as if prison should be an afterthought? Fans will still think LT's the best ever. Fans will still consider him a HOFer. Taking the jacket back doesn't really change much.

 

[Fencer]

No.

His recent actions may be a good reason to exclude him from HOF-related activities.

But his accomplishments as a player are what they were.

I wouldn't even kick OJ Simpson out of the HOF, although I might put up an extra plaque about his post-football difficulties.

 

[Dynasty]

They knew "LT" history when he was inducted. Sadly the voters don't seem to care about a players off the field problems. IF convicted he should be removed from the HOF. Those are guys kids look up to.

 

[DarrylS]

At one time would say no, but now with the new "clean NFL" and accompanying expectations of all of the players, there needs to be a method for removal.

OJ Simpson and LT(if found guilty) come to mind, also think that their pensions need to be rescinded, due to their activities..

There is a basic expectation of reasonable behavior, these two have violated that expectation..

 

[Fixit]

Those are guys kids look up to.

No, they aren't, if parents are actually parenting. No person whom you don't know closely should ever be held up as a role model for your children. Ever. The only thing that a child should emulate about an athlete is how they play the game...or an author how well they tell a story...or an actor how well they perform...or a cop how well they uphold the law.

I have zero problems with the degenerates in the respective Halls of Fame, because they earned it by how they played. It's not the Hall of Famously Great Human Beings.

Nothing personal at all, but every time I hear someone pull the "What about the children?" card, I want to throw up. Whoever's worried about the example that someone like Lawrence-effing-Taylor is setting for their children isn't doing anything resembling their job.

 

[Fixit]

There is a basic expectation of reasonable behavior, these two have violated that expectation..

Where's the expectation laid out?

Anyway, remove just one guy for his off-the-field activities and you've set a bad precedent.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I went to the HOF web page and couldn't find anything but "on the field" criteria for selection (I'm open to being corrected on that, BTW). So, I guess it would be impossible to remove anyone. But, I think that off field stuff does play a role in the process and will continue to do so.

 

[BostonPatriot]

Yes............

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

No, they aren't, if parents are actually parenting. No person whom you don't know closely should ever be held up as a role model for your children. Ever. The only thing that a child should emulate about an athlete is how they play the game...or an author how well they tell a story...or an actor how well they perform...or a cop how well they uphold the law.

I have zero problems with the degenerates in the respective Halls of Fame, because they earned it by how they played. It's not the Hall of Famously Great Human Beings.

Nothing personal at all, but every time I hear someone pull the "What about the children?" card, I want to throw up. Whoever's worried about the example that someone like Lawrence-effing-Taylor is setting for their children isn't doing anything resembling their job.

Very well put.

To go further, leaving him in the HOF doesn't glorify his off-field problems, it simply continues to honor what he did on the field.

An example. Several decades ago, a small town right outside mine had a young man earn valedictorian at that high school. About a month after he graduated, he went to a party and took a bad hit of acid. He was never the same. Since then, he's wandered around the area daily collecting cans and talking to himself.

Should that high school rescind his valedictorian status? Are they glorifying what he did after high school by not doing so? Are they sending a bad message to students in school now?

He earned that valedictorian status. The mistake he made after he graduated doesn't change what he earned while he was there.

 

[Patsfan76]

I'm not real sure about this but I thought that they removed O.J. Simpson's bust from the hall of fame did they not?

 

[Wolfpack]

Rose IS paying for his past transgressions...and paying dearly.

If Ty Cobb is in the Hall of Fame, so too should Pete Rose. His faults as a human being should play no part in what he did on the diamond. You start down this road and pretty soon you got about 200 or 300 members of the hall that should be removed.

Oh really? "200 or 300" members of the HOF bet on baseball games that they were participating in? Which ones?

Because the only guy I can think of who bet on baseball games he participated in is a guy named "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and I'm pretty sure he ain't in the HOF either (despite clearly having the stats making him worthy of it).

 

[Gwedd]

Let's see how this argument works for other areas, since if we are going to judge whether someone deserves recognition based upon post-award actions, that argument should be valid for any other category.

Ira Hayes.
Ira Hayes was an American Indian who served in the US Marine Corps during WWII. He was one of the men who raised the flag on Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima, and was immortalized in a photograph of the action. He is also shown in bronze on the Marine Corps memorial in Washington DC, along with his name and those of the others present. he was one of onyl three who survived the battle from that image.

Hayes and the other two were returned to Washington and feted as heroes, met the President, were on newsreels and radio interviews, etc.

After he was discharged, Hayes turned to alcohol and was arrested 52 times before he was found dead, face down in his own vomit.

Should we remove Corporal Ira Haye's name and image from the Marine Corps monument because of his post-service actions? Should we take his name out of the history books or put an asterix next to his name?

NO.

These athletes, like Ira Hayes, are honored for what they did THEN, not who they became later. We should remember them how they were, what they accomplished and what records they set and/or broke.

Arguing to remove someone from the HoF for actions they did after their enshrinement is a terribly slippery slope, and one we ought not to be treading.

Respects,

 

[Fixit]

Oh really? "200 or 300" members of the HOF bet on baseball games that they were participating in? Which ones?

Because the only guy I can think of who bet on baseball games he participated in is a guy named "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and I'm pretty sure he ain't in the HOF either (despite clearly having the stats making him worthy of it).

Betting on your own team to win vs. throwing a World Series.

Yeah, those are the same.