This list is completely arbitrary and not a genuine analysis of the relative merits of state fossils.
MGoHall Of Fame: We Should Have One
Filed under:
This message board post gave me an idea: this blog should create an e-HOF for Michigan athlete in the sports it covers. Retiring numbers is something that people do 30 years down the road, and probably never in football; legends patches will be issued to like six people. There should be an intermediate ground. Now is the time to create plaques.
First we must set ground rules.
Q: should there be a waiting period?
I remember thinking Michigan should retire Lavell Blanchard's number because he represented the start of a new era in Michigan's basketball program. That didn't so much happen. There's a reason HOFs usually impose a five-year waiting period.
On the other hand, it might be a good idea to be able to recognize players right away, and unlike actual HOFs if we mess up we can implement the Bill Simmons solution by creating a pyramid with the all-timers at the top and the guys were may have gotten over-excited about at the bottom.
Q: what should the criteria be for admission?
For one I think only players who played after 2005, when the blog started, should be eligible—at least at first. There may be a time when we start reaching further back but fundamentally this is about experiencing the careers of the guys who get in, something we can't do with Tom Harmon.
As far as who is a quality candidate, this is some combination of being really good and an ineffable other quality that encompasses having dreads or bleeding all over everything or developing a pathological hatred of the media or absolutely stoning North Dakota or talking up brunette girls in the aftermath of your game-winning kick. Like… this should be a thing Zack Novak gets in, no questions asked. It should be equally about the impact player X has on the pleasure of being a Michigan fan than about being really good. Really good helps, of course.
When Deadspin bothered with their HOF they required a 75% approval rate to get in. Here voting would only be open to >100 point users, I'd imagine. Is that the right number? Should it be a sliding scale such that anyone who just graduated needs 95% and it drops five percent each year until it gets to 75%?
Q: should there be an annual cap on admitees?
I was thinking three, but surveying this hypothetical field of candidates makes that seem slender: RVB, Martin, Novak, Hunwick, Molk. And then there's a backlog of players who have impacted in the era this blog was talking about sports. Maybe there should be a larger inaugural class.
Q: what about sports that don't get coverage around here?
Football, basketball, and hockey are going to get adequate face time. Other sports, not so much. This is largely because they don't get enough attention to have the aforementioned impact. I'd like to recognize everyone else but the reason I don't write about everything is I can't do so competently. Does this thing have a place for the Kellen Russells/Samantha Findleys of the world? Maybe we should set aside a non-revenue spot every other year or something.
The comments are your debating ground.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:42 PM | 
Maybe you should start off
Maybe you should start off
February 29th, 2012 at 2:46 PM |
Does that mean that
Does that mean that
there should be one representative yearly from Football, Basketball, Hockey, and then non-revenue sport? Or do non-revenues not deserve to have someone inducted each year?
"I figure if I can get two degrees from Ohio State, it might be close to Elliott’s undergraduate degree" -- Brock
February 29th, 2012 at 2:54 PM |
I don't think every sport
I don't think every sport
I don't think every sport necessarily deserves an inductee. I don't know that anyone from the 2008 football team would warrant induction, for example.*
*I'm not really counting Brandon Graham there, since he wasn't a senior.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:58 PM |
Agree
Agree
Trying to find at least one every year of the blog's existence is going to be difficult. Assuming only graduating/departing players are inducted, who would you put in for football in 2010? Basketball up until just now? Maybe Harris and Sim. Would someone like Morris get in based on one great season? Before that is there anybody who should really be included?
I think, this year aside, there are going to be too few candidates rather than too many.
It is spelled HOKEAMANIA. Our coach is an ass-kicking American citizen, not one of the Beatles, for Christ's sake!
March 1st, 2012 at 8:19 AM |
Come on
Come on
Morris should get in based on "Get the fuck off my court."
LSA, Class of 2009
February 29th, 2012 at 4:56 PM |
Of course it
Of course it
should include "non-revenue" sports.
I think it should be limited to graduating seniors for each sport with a 3 year wait time.
From the Red Cedar Message Board: "God hates us." Yes He does Lil Bro, yes he does. Everyone hates you.
February 29th, 2012 at 5:03 PM |
I never said that it
I never said that it
I never said that it shouldn't include non-revenue sports. But not every sport is deserving of an inductee each year. Why force us to pick a basketball player if all the basketball players sucked? Why force us to pick a football player when the 3-9 team had no standouts on offense or defense? I don't really care whether non-revenue athletes get in or not. If they're good enough, sure.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:14 PM |
...sports that don't get coverage around here...
...sports that don't get coverage around here...
Q: what about sports that don't get coverage around here?
Especially, for sports that don't get coverage around here. What a great way to honor a slect few great kids who don't play a revenue sport but who are some of the greatest Michigan Men and Women we could ever hope to encounter.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:58 PM |
well..
well..
think it would be folly to not include just the 3 best athletes.
Non-revenue sports can basically be considered anything except football, basketball and hockey, but that would leave off Sam Mikulak (all around gymnastics NCAA champion 2010), peter vandekaay (US Gold Medal 2008) among others. Softball has had some greats too.
On the fifth night—possibly the sixth—a breeze arose.
It was cool and dewy.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:08 PM |
Right
Right
But we're also talking about the large initial induction that would most definitely include the guys you mentioned along with other possibilities like Jenny Ritter, Kellen Russell, etc...
"I figure if I can get two degrees from Ohio State, it might be close to Elliott’s undergraduate degree" -- Brock
February 29th, 2012 at 5:01 PM |
Considering Kylee Botterman also
Considering Kylee Botterman also
won the NCAA women's gymnastics championship in the same year (but wasn't it 2011?), the set limit per year, revenue or non-revenue, gets tricky. But since individual national championships don't come around that often, to say nothing of a double, it seems that should have serious weight in a legitimate hall of fame. College athletes usually compete for 3-4 years, so are we talking about a single year of competition or voting per year for a career's achievements?
February 29th, 2012 at 11:11 PM |
This
This
I think that's perfect. One from each of the 3 sports (unless you get a year like this year where you have Novak, Martin, Molk, RVB) but usually I think this would be a great idea
February 29th, 2012 at 3:21 PM |
If you count 2012......
If you count 2012......
you could have 24, maybe round up to 25 for the first year and 3 every year after that. The top 25 vote getters by percent (assuming they would be eligible by the sliding scale that Brian has set up), should be the first to get in.
What about a dedicated website, or wiki page that captures the voting history of each athlete and how they stack up to their peers?
February 29th, 2012 at 2:44 PM |
Agreed in part
Agreed in part
So long as individual players from said team can also get in by themselves, for instance, Denard should get in because he's made of Dilithium and his smile is a constant stream of joy spreading rainbows.
"I figure if I can get two degrees from Ohio State, it might be close to Elliott’s undergraduate degree" -- Brock
February 29th, 2012 at 2:46 PM |
This happens
This happens
The dream team got in, I don't believe that Mullen was in on his own, it was cuz he was on the Dream Team. OTOH, MJ was going to be a hall of famer no questions asked.
"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"
February 29th, 2012 at 2:49 PM |
No offense, but I think it's
No offense, but I think it's
No offense, but I think it's kind of silly to induct a whole team to the Hall of Fame, let alone an 11-2 team that didn't win the Big Ten championship. I hate to argue for the integrity of a blog's hall of fame that has yet to be created, but I guess that's what I'm doing.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:06 PM |
I know what you're talking
I know what you're talking
I know what you're talking about. I just don't like the idea. Just a difference of opinions.
February 29th, 2012 at 4:34 PM |
Agree
Agree
I agree with Magnus.
I am going to go and throw-up now. (jk)
--
Benjamin in Ann Arbor.
snowfox web design + development
February 29th, 2012 at 4:58 PM |
Agree with Magnus??
Agree with Magnus??
Is that possible??? /s
From the Red Cedar Message Board: "God hates us." Yes He does Lil Bro, yes he does. Everyone hates you.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:17 PM |
Maybe we could have a "Team
Maybe we could have a "Team
Maybe we could have a "Team of the Year" kind of deal, where the squad who performs the best gets the nod. Like last year, it would probably have been the hockey team (or possibly basketball).
But at the same time, that runs into the problem of only having (realistically) 3 squads to choose from, (basketball, hockey and football) unless we want to delve deeper into Michigan sports, which—outside of the regular softball updates and new lacrosse team—the blog rarely does.
USING GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF CAPS LOCK SINCE APRIL 2011
February 29th, 2012 at 3:41 PM |
What if we had a yearly "best
What if we had a yearly "best
What if we had a yearly "best team of the last 5 years" vote? That way you have 15+ teams to choose from.
Then you could set up a "king of the hill" type thing - if a team wins the "best team of the last 5 years" vote every year they are eligible, they get a place in the HOF. Thus, a team would really need to stand out from its peers to earn permanent recognition.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:13 PM |
I think
I think
there should be a compromise of this and the yearly between the 3. sounds like a great idea to recognize the best Michigan sports program each year, but like you said, get more choices
February 29th, 2012 at 5:40 PM |
Pantheon of Champions
Pantheon of Champions
"Team of the year" is dubious because it would be stiff competition some years and weak others, while non-revenue sports would basically never win. Is there really a team this year better than the second-best team from the 97-98 school year (wheh hockey and football both won NCs). And this is a good year.
With players, I think it's easier to say "fewer players deserved the honor this year" but it's hard to have an amorphous number of teams that deserve to go and really regulate that the way we'd like. I think I'd have a hard time voting against any of this year's revenue sports if it were into the HoF, but including all three of them, and maybe any of them besides basketball, could be diluting the honor too much.
I think it'd be better to be simply create a "Pantheon of Champions" (both Big Ten and National Champions) and admission would be based on championships rather than a vote. That also allows recognition easily in all sports and doesn't let a decent football year dominate a national championship year in a non-revenue sport.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:45 PM |
I agree
I agree
inaugaral class should be larger, subsequent years limit it to maybe 4 from the major sports and one non revenue athlete per year and even consider an "executive/admin/media position as well
February 29th, 2012 at 2:46 PM |
Set a really high bar, maybe
Set a really high bar, maybe
Set a really high bar, maybe 90% for admission. This blog is full of homers. No limit to the number of admittees.
An alternate idea is a pyramid structure with Denard Robinson/Brandon Graham at the top (95% of votes) and scale it down to admit the guys everyone loves like Novak (75%) even though he'll never be an All-American level player.
Add a legacy class this year to include those folks who finished prior to the year.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:51 PM |
Agreed that the bar needs to
Agreed that the bar needs to
Agreed that the bar needs to be REALLY high. There are people around here who would think Tacopants and Will Heininger should be hall of famers.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:02 PM |
In your mind would Kovacs
In your mind would Kovacs
In your mind would Kovacs make it? Assuming he doesn't get injured or have a terrible year I think he should deserve get in
My username is spelled "mgordoblue", but it's pronounced "Throat Warbler Mangrove".
February 29th, 2012 at 3:09 PM |
It depends on my other
It depends on my other
It depends on my other options, but I would strongly consider Kovacs.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:11 PM |
Yeah, I imagine a 75% bar
Yeah, I imagine a 75% bar
Yeah, I imagine a 75% bar here would result in most of the senior class being admitted each season in football. Steven Threet might have had a shot at 75% if he would have stayed here.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:52 PM |
The high bar is why I like a
The high bar is why I like a
The high bar is why I like a limited number of inductees. Maybe use approval of 75% (or whatever) to set nominations, then voters choose their top 3 (or 4, or whatever) out of the eligible pool. Each player can only be nominated a limited number of times - say 5. That way, maybe Martin, Novak, and Hunwick make it this year, but Molk gets another chance next year.
Then, effectively, you'd get the top 15 (assuming 3/year) players out of every rolling 5 year period. That seems like an appropriately high bar. It also gives a chance to reflect on the more marginal choices. Finally, it allows an additional distinction for the really, really greats - I'd assume Denard will be a first-ballot selection.
February 29th, 2012 at 4:41 PM |
The core problem in need of
The core problem in need of
The core problem in need of resolution is how to balance inclusiveness and exclusiveness. In my opinion, your proposal is a great way to ensure that everyone who should be inducted gets in, while at the same time making inductions highly selective.
One thing we'd have to address is to set the total number of inductees correctly, taking into consideration the number of sports we're working with.
c/o 2008
GO BLUE!
February 29th, 2012 at 6:45 PM |
Determining the correct
Determining the correct
Determining the correct number per year could be accomplished by creating a sample ballot for each of the past years and voting using my system. We start with 3 per year and then decide if the cutoff leaves out too many deserving candidates. If so, try it again with 4 per year and so on until we get a satisfactory result. I think 2005 to now should be a nice enough sample to go on.
One addendum to my plan: to be on the ballot, you must have been nominated the first year you're eligible, then you're automatically on the ballot for 5 years (until you get in). This ensures that players are nominated for their feats at Michigan rather than subsequent success in the pros. This would leave Tom Brady out, which I'm fine with - he's an NFL hall of famer, but not really a Michigan hall of famer.
February 29th, 2012 at 4:14 PM |
Tacopants obviously will be a
Tacopants obviously will be a
Tacopants obviously will be a first ballot MGoHOFer.... As soon as his eligibility expires.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:54 PM |
Agree completely. Set the
Agree completely. Set the
Agree completely. Set the bar extremely high but do not limit the numbers each year.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:56 PM |
Shouldn't we wait till Denard
Shouldn't we wait till Denard
Shouldn't we wait till Denard graduates before inducting him into a HOF?
"There will be blood on the field and it won't be mine." -KK
February 29th, 2012 at 3:06 PM |
We can put his dreads in as a placeholder.
We can put his dreads in as a placeholder.
The rest of him can catch up after he graduates.
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift
February 29th, 2012 at 3:12 PM |
Wow
Wow
That might be the first time anyone ever suggested Denard would have to "catch up" to something.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:18 PM |
Probably the only time I've
Probably the only time I've
Probably the only time I've laughed at a Purdue presser (granted, it was the only time I watched anything from a Purdue presser) was when Kerrigan was talking about Denard catching him from behind after a fumble. His quote was something like: "Newsflash, guys, I'm not faster than Denard Robinson".
Go Blue!
February 29th, 2012 at 3:12 PM |
I like this
I like this
usually it's his dreads trying to catch up to the rest of him
February 29th, 2012 at 4:38 PM |
Unless someone leaves early
Unless someone leaves early
Unless someone leaves early to go pro or has a career ending injury, I would go with graduation as a requirement. I would also have fewer athletes and make "election" to our HOF something special. For me the number of annual inductees would probably be three.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:47 PM |
great idea... if only the
great idea... if only the
great idea... if only the cutoff were low enough for me to vote. it's like being 19 again, you want the drinking age to be lower, but you can't vote to make it so.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:12 PM |
I don't know where you live,
I don't know where you live,
I don't know where you live, but in America the voting age is definitely 18.
February 29th, 2012 at 3:36 PM |
Oh he got convicted of a felony when he was 17
Oh he got convicted of a felony when he was 17
knocked off a liquor store to get some wine coolers and Goldschlager...
February 29th, 2012 at 5:03 PM |
good point, it appears i'm
good point, it appears i'm
good point, it appears i'm not the brightest tool in the shed
February 29th, 2012 at 2:49 PM |
i nominate
i nominate
Taco Pants
2013 resolution - make it onto the 2014 favorite MGoPosters post, not ironically
February 29th, 2012 at 2:50 PM |
The idea is good
The idea is good
it needs minor refining. So I vote yea!
February 29th, 2012 at 2:51 PM |
Maybe we could also have a
Maybe we could also have a
Maybe we could also have a hall-of-fame for individual events or plays. For example,
--Hoke's inaugural press conference
--Van Bergen getting into the backfield on 3 consecutive downs against Indiana
--Martin forcing a pitch on the speed-option
--John Thompson's interception against Wisconsin
February 29th, 2012 at 3:19 PM |
Denard Robinson fumbling the
Denard Robinson fumbling the
Denard Robinson fumbling the snap against Western and giving us a preview of future glories.
Go Blue!
February 29th, 2012 at 3:54 PM |
I love this suggestion...
I love this suggestion...
I love this suggestion... maybe we could do both a HOF for individuals, and have a "Plays of the Year" shrine for the top 5 plays of the year in Michigan sports...
February 29th, 2012 at 2:53 PM |
I think one way to set it up would be like BBHOF style voting
I think one way to set it up would be like BBHOF style voting
Bear with me.... I agree that a larger first class makes sense, but for the "normal" year votes you should put out a ballot, and everyone can vote for 3 (or 4 or 5) out of the XX players nominated. Another way to do it would be "heisman" style, or NBA MVP style - rank 1, 2, 3, (4, 5?) from the nominees with each garnering a point value. Top 3 point getters get in.
If we're adding players to the HOF, and maybe teams, coaches and administrators, can we have moments/plays? The one that sticks out to me would be Denard's run at ND. Maybe a Play/Moment of the year for each year. You could do calendar year, or school season. Which is it for 2010-2011? Hunwick vs. UND? The hockey team's whole run including winning the CCHA Tourney? Denard's run at ND?
I think having a "Moment" or "Play" of the year could be a good addition also.
"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"
Maybe you should start off with an inaugural class of 3 for each year that the blog has been around. If it started in 2005, that's 7 x 3 = 21. Then you can add 3-5 each year beyond that. I agree that 3 might be too few, but 5 sounds like a lot. How about 4 new inductees each year?
Twitter - Recruiting Update: May 20