Should off-field actions be considered in HOF voting?

[OaklandR4iders]

Unless we talkin about OJ Simpson, No...

[jermely]

I was thinking about how you'd view a guy as you were voting for him, and obviously the perception of OJ was very different 20 years ago from what it is now. Would I remove him from the Hall? Tough question. But if they removed him as a Hall of Famer while still referencing his records, you'd get no tears from this fan. To paraphrase an earlier post, if being honored by the public is so important to OJ he should have thought of that before he (allegedly) slaughtered two people. The HOF is a privilege, not a right.

On the other hand, I'd vote for Lawrence Taylor, or Snake Stabler, in a heartbeat. To me their antics mainly hurt themselves and their families. They were not a menace to society and they did not cheat to achieve greatness.

Double standard? Maybe. It's really not a black and white issue to me.

It's true theres a gray area - but for me it seems like the Pro Football HOF has been working -- why fix it, if it ain't broke?

[DarkLordAlDavis]

No, hell No and F-no.......

[757r8rfan]

It's become a popularity contest so it doesn't matter really. Baseball won't allow Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame because he gambled on baseball games. Is it right? I don't know, but Rose should be in the HOF based on what he did as a player, not excluded because of what he did as a manager.

I agree that it has become popularity contest. Pete Rose's case is only different because he bet on baseball games while being employed as the manager of the Reds. Off field things should not be compared to what is done on the field IMO. If that does become the case, Ty Cobb should be the first player to be witdrawn form the MLB Hall of Fame.

[RaiderAg]

As a Raider fan, but also as a human being, I'd have to say no. Unless it involved something like betting on games you're playing in and doing something to influence the outcome of those games...or excessive bad sportsmanship, or getting arrested for violent crimes, you know, just those kinds of things, probably not the best Hall of Fame material there.

Maybe there are special cases, I mean, Pete Rose is the most extreme example ever, it's so unfortunate what happened to the Hit King.

[HITMAN]

No, Off field troubles should not count. OJ is and deserves to be in the hall of fame. He also deserves to be in prison for life but those are two different issues that should not hav an effect on the other.

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame. I have no problem with the banned for life from baseball but I do have a problem with Pete Rose not being in the hall.

I like that Goodell is cracking down on off field issues with players and agree its not good for the game, but if a guy does enough on the field to be a hall of famer then whatever off field issues he has should not keep him from that. And making the hall of fame, or being an athlete or celebrity in general should have no bearing on whether you are prosecuted for a crime either. So it should go both ways. It doesnt always, though I think the justice side of it has gotten better. Not where it needs to be, but we dont see a blind eye being turned often.

Good point and one I hadn't thought of. Rose by virtue of his accomplishments should be in the HOF, whether or not he's reinstated back into baseball doesn't really matter, but he should be in the HOF.

[R8drTahoe]

Perhaps there should be a seperate category for those players that are exceptionally giving with their time, money, and fame, in order to help their communities. There should be MUCH MORE recognition and gratitude for exemplary athletes with charitable attitudes, that is for SURE!

[madstork]

Good point and one I hadn't thought of. Rose by virtue of his accomplishments should be in the HOF, whether or not he's reinstated back into baseball doesn't really matter, but he should be in the HOF.

I agree on Rose, he should be in. I would only feel differently if he had bet against his own team.

[eckerbecker]

Keeping off-field issues separate from an athlete's pro career? Up to a point. Just because he has a star, it does not give him the license to act irresponsibly with impunity. Furthermore, one who has become famous means he has also become a public figure. Fame and recognition must be balanced by a corresponding amount of obligations, or fame becomes as worthy as a junk bond.