Apparently the football HOF selection committee does not have any charter or criteria to base their deliberations. Id have thought that picking the 5 best candidates, and arguing that each selection represents the best at their respective position would be a start. I understand where it becomes hard to argue Player A was a better LB than Player B was a RB. However, when comparing a position against itself, youd think that stats and achievements would be relatively easy. The selection committee could engage in a straightforward discussion comparing Marvin Harrison to Andre Reed to Tim Brown. Instead, as reported by Iraq Kaufman, there was basically no discussion, zero for Marvin Harrison. Yet all his achievements show him to be above Andre Reed and Tim Brown. I cant wait to hear the pundits theorize as to why Marvin Harrison was not selected to the HOF. Bias and personal agendas would be mine.
Posted on: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 06:08:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015