View Single Post
Old
11-09-2010, 10:53 AM
  #89
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
I'm intrigued by this idea, and would like to make a few suggestions:

a) Maybe we could start by grouping players by their birthdates: one week vote on players born from 1880-1884, next week 1885-1889, etc. until we've gone through all the decades to get an initial "inner circle" core group. I like the idea of the early players being the first ones inducted, and having some votes where they are the only ones eligible ensures that they get the proper consideration.

We could group them based on year of retirement like the actual HHOF does, but sometimes it can be sketchy trying to decide what retirement date to use; Their last NHL season? Their last season in an international tournament? When they officially announced their retirement? Besides, do we really need to wait for Lidstrom or Brodeur to retire before deciding if they're good enough?

b) For each vote a member can nominate a candidate, then if another member seconds the nomination then that candidate is on that weeks ballot. Perhaps limit members to only one nomination and one second per round so it's not just one person dominating the process. Once there's a set amount of candidates (5? 10?), then the vote is held.

c) Maybe have a very high threshold for induction for the first round of eligibility (perhaps 90%) to ensure only the true greats get in on the first crack, then lower it to maybe 75% for subsequent rounds when players who didn't make it the first time can have their cases revisited.

d) If a player gets rejected again, then put a limit of a certain amount of rounds before he can be nominated again. To prevent posters from continuously doing the same routine for their pet cause every round.

e) I like the idea of candidates being eligible in both the player and builder categories if they were accomplished in both.

f) Anyone who wants to vote should be allowed to, as long as there's none of the "Vote for Rory"-type silliness going on. If we restrict it to only a few people, then that prevents newcomers who may discover this midway through the process from participating. After all, we were all newbies here at some point.

g) Voters should be required to state "Yes" or "No" for every candidate in each round. If someone forgets to vote one week, it shouldn't count as a "No".

h) A separate thread is made for the inductees, complete with pictures, bios, stats and quotes. Similar to the ATD roster threads. But this thread should be perhaps having posting privileges restricted to just moderators, so it can remain as solely a tribute to the inductees and not arguments about why "this guy" didn't deserve to be inducted before "that guy".


Just my two cents.
I like all these with one huge concern about the proposed voting practice. If you make voting an open process (allowing any poster to vote or not), it might be really hard to reach a 90% threshold, considering there may be posters who are biased against certain eras, are biased against non-NHL accomplishments, or posters who simply think the Hall of Fame should have about 20 names in it and not more.

It might sound arrogant, but realistically, if you want the project to be "credible" to outsiders, you need some kind of screening process for participants (the Top 100 list had such a process automatically built in by requiring participants to first submit a Top 120 list of their own and rejecting the few lists that neglected a certain era or class of player).


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-09-2010 at 11:14 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote