IMO the Hall of Fame is kinda a sham..In my mind the HOF should be for the elite of the elite..the best of the best. They alot of cats in the Hall and linin' up to get in the Hall that shouldn't be there. The Hall of Fame should be extremely tough to get into...it should be for cats that changed the game of basketball or were the absolute elite at their position. It should be extrememly hard to make it in the Hall of Fame. The way it's set-up right now it should be renamed the Hall Of Achievement or the Hall Of Good & Great.... Requirements? <ul> [*]Retired from the game for 5 years(should apply to coaches and players) [*]A group of respected and elite players and coaches should be formed into a panel to review each prospective HOF member. [*]Stats shouldn't be an automatic entrance into the Hall;some cats had extraordinary stats but they were ordinary as players. [*]Longevity shouldn't be as big of an impact either,lots of guys play forever but never distinguish themselves. [*]It should be the absolute top tier of the best of the best. [/list] There are a TON of guys that shouldn't be there or shouldn't really be considered...here are a few and the reasons why..... David Thompson - he was a true high flyer and could score,but his career was shortened by drugs and he never truly lifted his team to any type of championship level. Good player but elite of the elite? no. David Bing - He was a great player in his day,could score with ease and take it to the rack with the best of the 'em. But other than 2-3 he was among the average of the league. Good player but elite of the elite? no. Artis Gilmore - He was a great player but was never in any one season truly the best in the game. Had a long fruitful career but isn't the elite of the elite by no means. ...Like I said,it should be extremely tough to get into the Hall and a look at alot of names enshrined in the Hall aren't worthy for an institution reserved for the Elite. Like Dick Vitale,why would he be enshrined he has done nothing on the basketball court of any real substance other than go like 30-60 in two pro seasons. Another thing,college players shouldn't be allowed into the Hall..this Hall would be for the professionals only. My first ballet would like this...10 players and 1 coach. Wilt Chamberlain Bill Russell George Mikan Kareem Abdul Jabbar Oscar Robertson Bob Cousy Bob Pettit Jerry West Magic Johnson Julius Erving Red Auerbach Each one of these guys were the elite in the their day and they are absolutely the elite of the elite of the guys eligible for the Hall. I just think the Hall Of Fame is a sham the way it's set as of right now...they let too many people in and the requirements are nowhere near as tough as they should be..... Look at the current HOF selection process. It isn't boiled down to elite players,in fact I'm bound to say that alot of it may come down to 'basketball politics considering who some of the Selection Committee people are...anyway,have a look... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Guidelines For Nomination and Election Into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame ELIGIBILITY Candidates must meet the following requirements in order to be eligible for Enshrinement into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (hereafter BHOF): Player: A player must be fully retired for five years before being eligible for Enshrinement. He/she may then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement. Should a player come out of retirement for a short period of time, as defined by the BHOF, his/her case and eligibility for Enshrinement shall be reviewed on an individual basis. Coach: A coach must be either fully retired for five years or, if still an active coach, have coached as either a fulltime assistant or head coach on the high school and/or college and/or professional level for a minimum of 25 years. That person will then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement or 26th year of active coaching. Referee: A referee must be fully retired for five years or, if still an active referee, have been an active referee for a minimum of 25 years. That person will then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement or 26th year of refereeing. Contributor: A person is eligible for Enshrinement as a contributor at any time for significant contributions to the game of basketball. What constitutes a "significant contribution" shall be determined by the BHOF, its Screening Committee(s) or Honors Committee(s). NOMINATION PROCESS A Nomination Packet consists of a completed nomination form procured from the BHOF, one letter of support from the person making the nomination (other letters will not be reviewed), and news clippings, magazine articles or other informative, factual data about the candidate. This material shall be submitted to the Director of New Media/Library Services of the BHOF during the period beginning October 1 and ending Dec 2. All nominees with completed nomination materials are presented to the appropriate Screening Committee for review. SCREENING COMMITTEES There are four Screening Committees: 1. USA; 2. Women; 3. Veterans (an individual whose career ended 35 years before his/her nomination); and 4. International. These Committees will review and recommend individuals to be reviewed for Enshrinement by the Honors Committee. Each Screening Committee is composed of seven people. To advance to the Honors Committee, an individual requires five affirmative votes from the applicable Screening Committee. If an individual does not receive a single affirmative vote for three consecutive years (0-21) that person's candidacy is suspended for five years after which time he/she may again start the process of being reviewed by a Screening Committee. There is no limitation on the number of years a person can be considered for Enshrinement by a Screening Committee unless that person does not receive a single vote for three consecutive years. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES After the vote of the Screening Committees, those candidates who are recommended to be put forth to the Honors Committee will first be reviewed by the BHOF Board of Trustees. At this time, should it be determined by the Board of Trustees that an individual has damaged the integrity of the game of basketball, he or she shall be deemed not worthy of Enshrinement and removed from consideration. HONORS COMMITTEE The purpose of the Honors Committee is to review carefully a candidate's basketball record before casting a vote in favor of Enshrining the person into the BHOF. There are 24 people on each of the four Honors Committees. A core group of 12 people sit on all four committees. Twelve specialists are then added to the International Committee while 12 others are added to the Women's Committee. Twelve other specialists review both the Veterans Committee and the USA Committee. These specialists have an intimate understanding of the specific category of play considered by their committee. A person needs a minimum of 18 votes from an Honors Committee to be Enshrined into the BHOF. If the Honors Committee has not elected a candidate for five consecutive years, the person's candidacy will be suspended for five years and will not be considered during this time. Following this five-year period, the candidate will be eligible to be reconsidered by the appropriate Screening Committee.</div> Selection Committe Link ..By reading these standards its clear there is no real 'requirement' for entrance in the Hall. It's just whoever these experts think belongs there and by some of the people in the HOF we can safely say some of these people don't really have a clue as to what a Hall Of Fame truly is. Here is the gist of my idea. Say there are 4 different branchs to the Hall Of Fame <Players/Coaches/Personel/Broadcasting>. For each section there would be a rigid screening process to scout out people who indeed meet minimum qualifications to be accepted and of these they are to pick the absolute best from that group to elected to the Hall. But it's my contention that each group should judged by their perspective peers;meaning that the panel of Selection Committee members should be culled from the current living members of each section of the Hall. The selection process itself should have very rigid guidelines in place as to where each person being looked at is gone over with much scrutiny to make sure that they meet the bare minimum of requirements. In fact I have an idea.... Basketballreference.com has something they call the Hall Of Fame Monitor. This thing guages players based on cumilative stats and awards which are themselves awarded points and then totaled up. By using this we could maybe figure out a rough sketch of what the elite players should be judged against. The current number that is used from the HOF Monitor score,to judge HOF caliber players,is 135. By using this number it allows people to be eligible for the Hall when they haven't really done alot to deserve recognition in an institution reserved for the very elite of the sport. If we raise the bar to 200 we then cull out 70% of the people that are 'eligible' under this system...the system goes like this... <u>The Formula</u> <ul> [*]75 points for each NBA MVP award [*]15 points for each All NBA First Team selection [*]1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value [*]2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency [*]3.5 points for each NBA Championship [*]-20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards [/list] Link for further,indepth explaination of the formula here is the list of 30 that meet this 200 score requirement... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">1. Kareem Abdul-jabbar 836* 2. Michael Jordan 733 3. Wilt Chamberlain 653* 4. Bill Russell 633* 5. Magic Johnson 551* 6. Larry Bird 530* 7. Karl Malone 505 8. Bob Pettit 465* 9. Moses Malone 454* 10. Oscar Robertson 412* 11. Bob Cousy 365* 12. Tim Duncan 364 13. Hakeem Olajuwon 340 14. Charles Barkley 319 15. Jerry West 319* 16. Shaquille O'neal 313 17. Elgin Baylor 311* 18. Julius Erving 296* 19. David Robinson 294 20. John Havlicek 224* 21. Wes Unseld 223* 22. Bob Mcadoo 222* 23. Dolph Schayes 222* 24. George Gervin 215* 25. Rick Barry 212* 26. Elvin Hayes 211* 27. Allen Iverson 207 28. Dave Cowens 207* 29. Willis Reed 206* 30. Walt Frazier 201*</div>Link to HOF Monitor list ..if you look at this list you can clearly see that these guys are truly the cream of the elite crop. Of course even with this process you would have to go over it with a fine toothed comb and weed out some people that still dont belong,even though that got a high enough cumilative score. Also you'd have to make allowances for some people whose scores didn't quite reach 200 but were indeed,very much,elite players. I think the requirements should be so strict that the very good players have an extremely slim-to-no chance of getting in. And like I said earlier the selection committees should represent each section of the Hall not just 'officials' at large like it seems. Bottom line...the Hall Of Fame is for absolute very elite of the sport and requirements should meet that standard and reflect an institution that only inducts said types of players/coaches/officials/broadcasters all from the professional ranks. <ul> [*]75 points for each NBA MVP award [*]15 points for each All NBA First Team selection [*]1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value [*]2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency [*]3.5 points for each NBA Championship [*]-20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards [/list]
Big Nasty what happened to Lenny Wilkens he would fit in both categorys, and you forgot Michael Jordan, how did that happen????
I'm glad you made this topic, because I basically feel the same way. This was kind of brought up last year on ESPN but it was with Baseball. I also feel that the HOF should be extremely hard to get into, and only for the elite, like you said. You have your great players who did a lot of things, but at the end of the day, do they really deserve to be next to names like Chamberlin, Russell, Magic, and the rest of the people on your list. Too many "good/great" players are in there who weren't really "superstar" status. Now I wasn't even around for a lot of these cats, but I'm inputting because this goes for other sports as well.
I cant agree with you guys on this one. Some players arent just in the hall because of their on court production. Some players are in for their overall impact on the game that might not be shown on a stat sheet or lead to a championship. Take David Thompson for example, his style of play in the ABA & NBA in the mid 70's/early 80's evolutionized the above the rim style of play for guards. Without Thompson you dont have Micheal Jordan or Vince Carter or any of the other above the rim stars that people have come to love over the past decade. His spot in the hall a fame has as much to do with that impact on the game as does his actual production.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Henacy:</div><div class="quote_post">I cant agree with you guys on this one. Some players arent just in the hall because of their on court production. Some players are in for their overall impact on the game that might not be shown on a stat sheet or lead to a championship. Take David Thompson for example, his style of play in the ABA & NBA in the mid 70's/early 80's evolutionized the above the rim style of play for guards. Without Thompson you dont have Micheal Jordan or Vince Carter or any of the other above the rim stars that people have come to love over the past decade. His spot in the hall a fame has as much to do with that impact on the game as does his actual production.</div> well I think Doc was way more revolutionary in that aspect than was DT....without Doc these cats wouldn't be the way they were...DT was never the best in the league and despite some great scoring numbers he isn't the best of the best..I love DT but I don't think he is Hall deserving...takes nothing away from what he did give the game....but the Hall should be reserved for the absolute best...
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Purple N Gold:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm glad you made this topic, because I basically feel the same way. This was kind of brought up last year on ESPN but it was with Baseball. I also feel that the HOF should be extremely hard to get into, and only for the elite, like you said. You have your great players who did a lot of things, but at the end of the day, do they really deserve to be next to names like Chamberlin, Russell, Magic, and the rest of the people on your list. Too many "good/great" players are in there who weren't really "superstar" status. Now I wasn't even around for a lot of these cats, but I'm inputting because this goes for other sports as well.</div> I wasn't around for alot of them cats either..but doing a little research and reading on some of the guys in the Hall will make you shake your head and say WTF? I know some of the early pioneers deserve the Hall but alot of these cats pale in comparison to the very elite...
How about Chick Hearn and Johnny Most as first ballot inductees? I don't know much about Most, but I know Chick Hearn was the author of most of the basketball terminology we use today (i.e slam dunk, finger roll)...definitey a big contributor to the game...
I dunno,as for myself I'm undecided about broadcasters....maybe they should make like a seperate spot in the Hall for people who helped the game from a television/radio aspect..but the Hall i envisioned would be for players/coaches only...thats not taking anything away from others it's just paying ultimate truibute for the Giants of the game..
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Big Nasty:</div><div class="quote_post">I dunno,as for myself I'm undecided about broadcasters....maybe they should make like a seperate spot in the Hall for people who helped the game from a television/radio aspect..but the Hall i envisioned would be for players/coaches only...thats not taking anything away from others it's just paying ultimate truibute for the Giants of the game..</div> I know you're undecided about announcers but I?ll give you my opinion anyway To me, the Basketball Hall of Fame is about people who have contributed a great deal to the game...We should be able to look back in 30 years and say "the game wouldn't be what it is today without so-and-so"...that's a basketball hall-of-famer in my opinion...I feel that isn't just held exclusively to players and coaches?Announcers, owners, and even commissioners have done a lot for the game. One can even argue that Chick Hearn did more for basketball than a guy like Jerry West?. The basketball HOF is a history museum of basketball?You can?t truly have a complete history lesson without including all aspects of the game?. Furthermore, I agree that the standards for the Hall-of-Fame are too low?and say if they were to have a separate basketball announcers HOF with high standards also, I think Johnny Most and Chick Hearn would be the only two guys in there?I hear Marv Alberts is probably the next in line in great hoops announcers and its my opinion Alberts hasn?t done anything extra-ordinary for the game?. Btw, there already is a broadcasters HOF that covers all of sports I think, as well as television?.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting notMuchgame:</div><div class="quote_post">I know you're undecided about announcers but I?ll give you my opinion anyway To me, the Basketball Hall of Fame is about people who have contributed a great deal to the game...We should be able to look back in 30 years and say "the game wouldn't be what it is today without so-and-so"...that's a basketball hall-of-famer in my opinion...I feel that isn't just held exclusively to players and coaches?Announcers, owners, and even commissioners have done a lot for the game. One can even argue that Chick Hearn did more for basketball than a guy like Jerry West?. The basketball HOF is a history museum of basketball?You can?t truly have a complete history lesson without including all aspects of the game?. Furthermore, I agree that the standards for the Hall-of-Fame are too low?and say if they were to have a separate basketball announcers HOF with high standards also, I think Johnny Most and Chick Hearn would be the only two guys in there?I hear Marv Alberts is probably the next in line in great hoops announcers and its my opinion Alberts hasn?t done anything extra-ordinary for the game?. Btw, there already is a broadcasters HOF that covers all of sports I think, as well as television?.</div> I agree whole heartedly....the Hall is for those players that so drastically changed the game and set it on a new course that the game itself may not be here without them. I think to get into the Hall you need to be a type of player that has taken the entire game onto a whole other level,not just racked up alot of stats or won a few games. As far as non-players/coaches...there should be somewhere where they are honored because some of these cats have themselves taken the game to another level.
I agree and disagree with this. First, I agree that the Hall does seem to over do it in terms of letting just about any player of any achievement in. But I think that these guys all deserve some recognition. David Thompson, for example, was quite an impact player in his day, and after he retired was still high in people's minds because of the era he was in. So he shouldn't be kept out of the hall just because Erving was at a higher tier than him. Instead, I think a compromise should be reached, and the Hall should have a special plaque or room reserved for the truly great ones, a Hall of the Hall. And it can be available only for those already in. And that one can have the most stringent admission requirements.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting starman85:</div><div class="quote_post">I agree and disagree with this. First, I agree that the Hall does seem to over do it in terms of letting just about any player of any achievement in. But I think that these guys all deserve some recognition. David Thompson, for example, was quite an impact player in his day, and after he retired was still high in people's minds because of the era he was in. So he shouldn't be kept out of the hall just because Erving was at a higher tier than him. Instead, I think a compromise should be reached, and the Hall should have a special plaque or room reserved for the truly great ones, a Hall of the Hall. And it can be available only for those already in. And that one can have the most stringent admission requirements.</div> Well DT does deserve recognition for things that he has done...but he never really changed the game in any revolutionary way. Like I said Doc was the first to take the game above the rim,DT was next in line. If you look at his stats he had about 4 really good years but his teams were never able to do much,and he choked a few times as well in playoff games. If you look at the overview of his career you get a highflyer who has capable of putting up gaudy numbers but whose teams were never a real threat but for one year.....I love DT but I just don't think he did enough to warrant a Hall Of Fame spot. Anyways,you come up with a good idea..but maybe it should be like a basketball Shrine connected to the Hall...the Shrine where the very good players are and the Hall reserved for the very top tier...
So each year should have fewer "winners" from the HoF-nominee ballot...is that what you're saying should be done?
Ummm,no. What I'm saying is that the selection process should be more select and the requirements to get in should border on the almost impossible especially since it will be applied to the elite of the elite players. Look at the current HOF selection process. It isn't boiled down to elite players,in fact I'm bound to say that alot of it may come down to 'basketball politics considering who some of the Selection Committee people are...anyway,have a look... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Guidelines For Nomination and Election Into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame ELIGIBILITY Candidates must meet the following requirements in order to be eligible for Enshrinement into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame (hereafter BHOF): Player: A player must be fully retired for five years before being eligible for Enshrinement. He/she may then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement. Should a player come out of retirement for a short period of time, as defined by the BHOF, his/her case and eligibility for Enshrinement shall be reviewed on an individual basis. Coach: A coach must be either fully retired for five years or, if still an active coach, have coached as either a fulltime assistant or head coach on the high school and/or college and/or professional level for a minimum of 25 years. That person will then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement or 26th year of active coaching. Referee: A referee must be fully retired for five years or, if still an active referee, have been an active referee for a minimum of 25 years. That person will then be considered for Enshrinement in the sixth year of retirement or 26th year of refereeing. Contributor: A person is eligible for Enshrinement as a contributor at any time for significant contributions to the game of basketball. What constitutes a "significant contribution" shall be determined by the BHOF, its Screening Committee(s) or Honors Committee(s). NOMINATION PROCESS A Nomination Packet consists of a completed nomination form procured from the BHOF, one letter of support from the person making the nomination (other letters will not be reviewed), and news clippings, magazine articles or other informative, factual data about the candidate. This material shall be submitted to the Director of New Media/Library Services of the BHOF during the period beginning October 1 and ending Dec 2. All nominees with completed nomination materials are presented to the appropriate Screening Committee for review. SCREENING COMMITTEES There are four Screening Committees: 1. USA; 2. Women; 3. Veterans (an individual whose career ended 35 years before his/her nomination); and 4. International. These Committees will review and recommend individuals to be reviewed for Enshrinement by the Honors Committee. Each Screening Committee is composed of seven people. To advance to the Honors Committee, an individual requires five affirmative votes from the applicable Screening Committee. If an individual does not receive a single affirmative vote for three consecutive years (0-21) that person's candidacy is suspended for five years after which time he/she may again start the process of being reviewed by a Screening Committee. There is no limitation on the number of years a person can be considered for Enshrinement by a Screening Committee unless that person does not receive a single vote for three consecutive years. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES After the vote of the Screening Committees, those candidates who are recommended to be put forth to the Honors Committee will first be reviewed by the BHOF Board of Trustees. At this time, should it be determined by the Board of Trustees that an individual has damaged the integrity of the game of basketball, he or she shall be deemed not worthy of Enshrinement and removed from consideration. HONORS COMMITTEE The purpose of the Honors Committee is to review carefully a candidate's basketball record before casting a vote in favor of Enshrining the person into the BHOF. There are 24 people on each of the four Honors Committees. A core group of 12 people sit on all four committees. Twelve specialists are then added to the International Committee while 12 others are added to the Women's Committee. Twelve other specialists review both the Veterans Committee and the USA Committee. These specialists have an intimate understanding of the specific category of play considered by their committee. A person needs a minimum of 18 votes from an Honors Committee to be Enshrined into the BHOF. If the Honors Committee has not elected a candidate for five consecutive years, the person's candidacy will be suspended for five years and will not be considered during this time. Following this five-year period, the candidate will be eligible to be reconsidered by the appropriate Screening Committee.</div> Selection Committe Link ..By reading these standards its clear there is no real 'requirement' for entrance in the Hall. It's just whoever these experts think belongs there and by some of the people in the HOF we can safely say some of these people don't really have a clue as to what a Hall Of Fame truly is. Here is the gist of my idea. Say there are 4 different branchs to the Hall Of Fame <Players/Coaches/Personel/Broadcasting>. For each section there would be a rigid screening process to scout out people who indeed meet minimum qualifications to be accepted and of these they are to pick the absolute best from that group to elected to the Hall. But it's my contention that each group should judged by their perspective peers;meaning that the panel of Selection Committee members should be culled from the current living members of each section of the Hall. The selection process itself should have very rigid guidelines in place as to where each person being looked at is gone over with much scrutiny to make sure that they meet the bare minimum of requirements. In fact I have an idea.... Basketballreference.com has something they call the Hall Of Fame Monitor. This thing guages players based on cumilative stats and awards which are themselves awarded points and then totaled up. By using this we could maybe figure out a rough sketch of what the elite players should be judged against. The current number that is used from the HOF Monitor score,to judge HOF caliber players,is 135. By using this number it allows people to be eligible for the Hall when they haven't really done alot to deserve recognition in an institution reserved for the very elite of the sport. If we raise the bar to 200 we then cull out 70% of the people that are 'eligible' under this system...the system goes like this... <u>The Formula</u> <ul> [*]75 points for each NBA MVP award [*]15 points for each All NBA First Team selection [*]1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value [*]2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency [*]3.5 points for each NBA Championship [*]-20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards [/list] Link for further,indepth explaination of the formula here is the list of 30 that meet this 200 score requirement... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">1. Kareem Abdul-jabbar 836* 2. Michael Jordan 733 3. Wilt Chamberlain 653* 4. Bill Russell 633* 5. Magic Johnson 551* 6. Larry Bird 530* 7. Karl Malone 505 8. Bob Pettit 465* 9. Moses Malone 454* 10. Oscar Robertson 412* 11. Bob Cousy 365* 12. Tim Duncan 364 13. Hakeem Olajuwon 340 14. Charles Barkley 319 15. Jerry West 319* 16. Shaquille O'neal 313 17. Elgin Baylor 311* 18. Julius Erving 296* 19. David Robinson 294 20. John Havlicek 224* 21. Wes Unseld 223* 22. Bob Mcadoo 222* 23. Dolph Schayes 222* 24. George Gervin 215* 25. Rick Barry 212* 26. Elvin Hayes 211* 27. Allen Iverson 207 28. Dave Cowens 207* 29. Willis Reed 206* 30. Walt Frazier 201*</div>Link to HOF Monitor list ..if you look at this list you can clearly see that these guys are truly the cream of the elite crop. Of course even with this process you would have to go over it with a fine toothed comb and weed out some people that still dont belong,even though that got a high enough cumilative score. Also you'd have to make allowances for some people whose scores didn't quite reach 200 but were indeed,very much,elite players. I think the requirements should be so strict that the very good players have an extremely slim-to-no chance of getting in. And like I said earlier the selection committees should represent each section of the Hall not just 'officials' at large like it seems. Bottom line...the Hall Of Fame is for absolute very elite of the sport and requirements should meet that standard and reflect an institution that only inducts said types of players/coaches/officials/broadcasters all from the professional ranks. <ul> [*]75 points for each NBA MVP award [*]15 points for each All NBA First Team selection [*]1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value [*]2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency [*]3.5 points for each NBA Championship [*]-20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards [/list]
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Big Nasty:</div><div class="quote_post"> Bottom line...the Hall Of Fame is for absolute very elite of the sport and requirements should meet that standard and reflect an institution that only inducts said types of players/coaches/officials/broadcasters all from the professional ranks.</div> Those words really say what should be but apparently isn't. Then again, everyone must've done something truly great to be in there. With that said, we can safely say people must deserve the spot if they are in it. Then what Chukk posted earlier comes to mind. It's just wrong, people acheiving so little and still making it in there. David Thompson, a mad dunker, cut short, made no real impact. As much as I too, love Skywalker, that's just wrong. It's not fair of others to rank the elite among the mediocre. I hope this gets fixed, or even that the requirements alter to more difficulties.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Magic Johnson:</div><div class="quote_post">Those words really say what should be but apparently isn't. Then again, everyone must've done something truly great to be in there. With that said, we can safely say people must deserve the spot if they are in it. Then what Chukk posted earlier comes to mind. It's just wrong, people acheiving so little and still making it in there. David Thompson, a mad dunker, cut short, made no real impact. As much as I too, love Skywalker, that's just wrong. It's not fair of others to rank the elite among the mediocre. I hope this gets fixed, or even that the requirements alter to more difficulties.</div> DT wasn't mediocre by any means,he was a very good player but he wasn't within the ranks of the really elite cats(such as Wilt,Russell,Kareem,Big O etc). I think DT should be honored somehow but not in a Hall Of Fame....like I said by seemingly letting anyone in who has good numbers or accomplished a few things,the Elite status is removed from the Hall.
According to this Formula John stockton, Scottie Pippen, Dominque Wilkens, Patrick Ewing all wont be able to get into the hall a fame when their time comes but these cats have had a major impact on the way the game of basketball is viewed & played. And also this formula hurts players who played in the era of a truly dominate player like say MJ. If Jordan wasnt around John & Patrick Ewing would have a couple of championships which would make their hall a fame value go up. So according to this system you would be limiting their value on the game to how many championships they won. But stockton is the all-time assist & staels leader. And Patrick Ewing was on the best centers of his era. And they both played a big part of revolutioizing the game around the world with their performances on Dream Team 1 in '92. I think that the hall a fame should be based on just a little bit more than stats & championships. Its just my opinion. What about the players that are in the hall a fame for breaking the color barriers in basketball? I think they have had the biggest impact on the game of basketball.
I agree with what ya sayin' playa...that's why I said even usin' some kinda formula like that we still gonna have to make very few considerations for cats who dont quite have the stats/numbers/awards but were of elite talent. As far as the color barrier I agree with that because they changed the game forever...
