Theismann Vs. Peter King...right now on ESPN Radio

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by irish

Why? I think having people on the board for longer periods of time provides the committee with members that have a sense of history and a better sense for comparison across eras. IMO, it seems that today most people think that nothing in sports happened before 2000.

AM's best bet is for old timers like King who actually saw him play as compared to newbees that think barry sanders is old-school.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense - you think Peter King has a better sense of history than Tony Kornheiser or Mitch Albom? Neither of them is on the Board, but could be added if the selectors were limited to, say, 5 years. I'm not sure why you assume that anyone who is not currently on the Board would be lack the ability to draw comparisons across eras. (Of course, it is ironic that PK has no sense of history and is unable to appreciate the magnitude of Monk's pre-2000 accomplishments.)

The selectors should be replaced after a set term. Limits help to avoid crap like this, where certain members get bugs up their asses about certain players for no good reason and prevent them from getting into the Hall.

[irish]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Huh? That doesn't make any sense - you think Peter King has a better sense of history than Tony Kornheiser or Mitch Albom? Neither of them is on the Board, but could be added if the selectors were limited to, say, 5 years. I'm not sure why you assume that anyone who is not currently on the Board would be lack the ability to draw comparisons across eras. (Of course, it is ironic that PK has no sense of history and is unable to appreciate the magnitude of Monk's pre-2000 accomplishments.)

The selectors should be replaced after a set term. Limits help to avoid crap like this, where certain members get bugs up their asses about certain players for no good reason and prevent them from getting into the Hall.

No, did I say he does? All I'm saying is that having long standing members of the committee provides a continuity that a constantly changing one would not.

What is amazing about this discussion is that it sounds like PK is the only vote keeping AM out. Obviously that is not true.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by irish

No, did I say he does? All I'm saying is that having long standing members of the committee provides a continuity that a constantly changing one would not.

What is amazing about this discussion is that it sounds like PK is the only vote keeping AM out. Obviously that is not true.

Yes, that is what your prior post implied.

Thanks for the clarification, and I see your point. You are correct that it would provide continuity, but not all continuity is good. Case in point - a Board that continuously rejects Art Monk is not good.

PK is just the most vocal - has anyone heard any other member's rationale for not voting in Monk?

[irish]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Yes, that is what your prior post implied.

Thanks for the clarification, and I see your point. You are correct that it would provide continuity, but not all continuity is good. Case in point - a Board that continuously rejects Art Monk is not good.

PK is just the most vocal - has anyone heard any other member's rationale for not voting in Monk?

Not that I know of.

I think the reality is that if AM was going to get in he would be there already but unfortunately he's not. The longer he goes without getting in the less his chances become because he slips further down the records lists and further from memory. It a shame.