Pigskin Fever Hall of Fame?

[philkid3]

So we have the excellent BBF HOF, why not do one here?

I'd love to be involved in a project like that from the beginning. Sure, we might not have a whole lot of voters, but is that really that big a deal?

[CCN]

So we have the excellent BBF HOF, why not do one here?

I'd love to be involved in a project like that from the beginning. Sure, we might not have a whole lot of voters, but is that really that big a deal?

I've been involved with the BBF HOF since the very beginning. I'm certainly for trying it out here.

[brady_branch]

I think a project like this could work, but I'd have to do a lot of research before I'd really feel like I could be a contributing member. History really isn't my thing when it comes to football. I can always learn, and I'll follow this project for sure, but I don't think I can contribute for a while.

[football junkie]

I'm all for it. Except I think we're going to run into a dearth of available data or information about the NFL in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s. I also wonder if anyone can name the best offensive lineman in the NFL or AFL from the 1950s.

Anyway I'm all for it and nominate Cliff Battles. How do we do this now?

[philkid3]

Since we're not a real Hall of Fame, I don't see a whole lot of problem with the limited data. We'll do our best.

Also, I would say the best linemen of the 50s was possibly Lou Groza.

[CCN]

Since we're not a real Hall of Fame, I don't see a whole lot of problem with the limited data. We'll do our best.

Also, I would say the best linemen of the 50s was possibly Lou Groza.

Roosevelt Brown. Or Jim Parker for the NFL. The AFL didn't start until 1960, and I'd say Ron Mix for that. As for the AAFL, I guess Groza is as good a guess as anybody.

This type of research is good and fun. And this is the type of thread that can generate further interest in the site. When people come over from Baseball Fever looking for certain things, like sirmudgeon looking for our all-time team lists (which could result from the HOF thread or vice-versa) or Galloping Ghost (HonusWagnerRules) comes over loking for info on guys like Don Hutson, the fact we can have something there can only help the site grow.

[Galloping Ghost]

I'd be up for a PFFHOF. This would give me another excuse to delve further into pro football history. Pro football history still has a lot to be uncovered and I like that. Perhaps we can slowing get more people to join and we can has nice long historical threads on specific players. Perhaps I'll start a Red Grange or Jim Thorpe thread. Football doesn't really have a "Babe Ruth" or "Ty Cobb" historical personality. I just hope we don't get bogged down by too many him vs him threads (I know, I know I started such a thread!).

[Galloping Ghost]

I'm all for it. Except I think we're going to run into a dearth of available data or information about the NFL in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s. I also wonder if anyone can name the best offensive lineman in the NFL or AFL from the 1950s.

Anyway I'm all for it and nominate Cliff Battles. How do we do this now?

I wonder if The Sporting News would be a good resource for historical searches?

[CCN]

I wonder if The Sporting News would be a good resource for historical searches?

It wouldn't be a bad start, they have plenty of books. But for years and years and years baseball was their raison d'etre.

I'd try the HOF's website. They have a good historical archive.

http://www.profootballhof.com/

[philkid3]

Roosevelt Brown. Or Jim Parker for the NFL. The AFL didn't start until 1960, and I'd say Ron Mix for that. As for the AAFL, I guess Groza is as good a guess as anybody.

This type of research is good and fun. And this is the type of thread that can generate further interest in the site. When people come over from Baseball Fever looking for certain things, like sirmudgeon looking for our all-time team lists (which could result from the HOF thread or vice-versa) or Galloping Ghost (HonusWagnerRules) comes over loking for info on guys like Don Hutson, the fact we can have something there can only help the site grow.

Parker was my first thought, but he didn't enter the leage until '57. I didn't consider that long enough to be the best in the decade.

And then Forrest Gregg comes along in the 60s. Parker just gets a raw deal.

[Galloping Ghost]

It wouldn't be a bad start, they have plenty of books. But for years and years and years baseball was their raison d'etre.

I'd try the HOF's website. They have a good historical archive.

http://www.profootballhof.com/

Hi CCN,

Was there ever a definitive pro football publication that covered pro football the way TSN covered baseball?

[philkid3]

Hi CCN,

Was there ever a definitive pro football publication that covered pro football the way TSN covered baseball?

The best football publication I've ever found is, maybe or maybe not surprisingly, Sports Illustrated. They recognized the popularity football would hold and put it before any other sport long before anyone else did. It's also easily accessed since it's such a major publication.

Their writers are crazy these days, but they are still great historians (when reporting facts, take Peter King's opinion with a grain of salt). I have a vast array of SI football books and they're some of the best sports reading I know of. And Walter Iooss Jr. is the greatest sports photographer who ever lived, and football is his specialty.


Unfortunately, SI only goes back to 1954.

[CCN]

Hi CCN,

Was there ever a definitive pro football publication that covered pro football the way TSN covered baseball?

Philkid's right. TSN never really came close to SI, and SI was/is very heavy on college, as well. SI used to be great for boxing. The Pat Putnam passed. But that's for another site.

The best publications usually put out one good guide a year, like Street & Smith.

[Galloping Ghost]

Philkid's right. TSN never really came close to SI, and SI was/is very heavy on college, as well. SI used to be great for boxing. The Pat Putnam passed. But that's for another site.

The best publications usually put out one good guide a year, like Street & Smith.

So it sounds like from what you and philkid3 are saying is that newspaper accounts are probably the best way to go in terms of historical research.

[philkid3]

So it sounds like from what you and philkid3 are saying is that newspaper accounts are probably the best way to go in terms of historical research.

Yes. I'm sure there was a good college publication I've never come across, but the AP was the primary source of news back then, and, obviously, that means most information is found in papers.

Prior to about the late 50s, football journalism is really about as thorough and accessible as baseball journalism in the 1870s. The NFL has gone through the same changes and growing pains that MLB did, but it's also a whole lot younger.

[philkid3]

So, anyone feel the resolve to get this started?

[CCN]

So, anyone feel the resolve to get this started?

Since it was your idea, I'll leave the honor to you to get it started, and I'll post my 25 right after.

[philkid3]

*gulp*

Alright, I'll look over the work done on the BBF Hall of Fame and try and copy it, but for those who were working with it from the start please pitch in and help correct my mistakes.

[philkid3]

CCN, in the early days did you put the contributor ballot and player ballot in the same voting thread?

Also, please make sure I haven't screwed anything up.


I know what my player ballot will be mostly, as I have participated in a project like this before. My theory on early ballots is nominating the best players at each position not yet enshrined with some tinkering, so I should have a ballot soon.

[brady_branch]

I'm not sure a straight 25-man ballot is the way to go, largely due to the lack of ability to compare across positions. Maybe 10 offensive, 10 defensive, and 5 swing votes? Or something like that?

I'll try and do some research over my break and maybe post a ballot near the end of the cycle.

[CCN]

CCN, in the early days did you put the contributor ballot and player ballot in the same voting thread?

Also, please make sure I haven't screwed anything up.


I know what my player ballot will be mostly, as I have participated in a project like this before. My theory on early ballots is nominating the best players at each position not yet enshrined with some tinkering, so I should have a ballot soon.

Everything looks good to me from what you have.

Once we started with the contributor's ballot, which I don't believe we did at the very beginning, most included it in the same voting thread as their player's ballot. It was actually 10 when we first started voting for contributors, I believe. Does that sound right, brady?

At this point and time, with 80+ years of history, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with 25 names. How we get to those names, of course, should be done in a careful and thorough manner. If it takes a little research, that's a good thing. As long as we're using personal criteria that's more involved than filling a ballot with guys whose qualifications over other candidates involve little more than being on your favorite team. That sort of bias has no place in this sort of project.

[brady_branch]

I think the contributor ballot is up to 15. And totally optional.

[CCN]

I think the contributor ballot is up to 15. And totally optional.

Once a year, too. In this HOF, with cooaches, exectutives and referee Hugh Ray, who pretty much codified the rule book, we have enough to start with.