Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
Hypothetical to see if there are limits to what you say. Suppose OJ Simpson had decapitated 2 people shortly after retiring. Should he still have been voted into the football HOF?
Some people think Joe Jackson and Pete Rose should be in the Hall based on their play. So, I'm wondering, aren't there some non-playing things that do, and should, disqualify someone from HOF consideration?
|
I would say anything out of sports should be irrelevant. O.J. is the most extreme case, and I don't know the exact criteria by the Pro Football hall of fame related to such an extreme case, but I would say he should not be removed. Whatever he did outside of football is irrelevant to the question, is he or is he not one of the greatest pro players? The answer is undeniably "Yes".
Now if they put up an exhibit honoring his victims, I would be in favor of that too, because O.J. is a titanic waste of human life. But it doesn't change that he was one of the best RB's ever.
There's another baseball player being punished now, Omar Vizquel. His vote has been cut in half after a private suit was filed by an bat boy alleging Vizquel molested him and seeking financial compensation. None of us have the evidence of alleged incident available to make any meaningful judgement and I don't believe it has gone to court, but Vizquel is being treated wildly different in Hall voting due to the claim, which we do not know any evidence for or against.
My opinion is that Vizquel does not belong in the Hall on playing grounds, but this treatment is also wrong. A claim, without any evidence yet presented and made for financial gain, is also enough to sink a candidate for an honor based on his actual playing. This is wrong.