These are some good ideas. Instead of them(play of the year type) being in the hall of fame we could just have an annual awards blog when the hall of famers are announced.
MGoHall Of Fame: We Should Have One
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.
I'm just short of 100 points, but 4 years of incredible production despite marginal physical gifts and the genesis of "Little Brother" have to count for something.
The first thought that came to mind is that Mike Hart needs to be in this thing.
Same here. In fact, I just did an Edit/Find/"Hart" to make sure that someone brought him up.
I would vote against Mike Hart.
I have a feeling that older fans are not as infatuated with him as his contemporaries and younger fans.
The first guy that jumps into my mind as far as needing to be in any Michigan HOF is never going to be a guy who was 0-4 against OSU. Fair or not, it's the biggest game.
I grew up watching Jamie Morris and Jim Harbaugh, so I consider myself an older fan--and I think Mike Hart is first-ballot all the way. He has the most rushing yards in UM history, fergodsakes. Besides, some ref gives Shawn Crable the benefit of the doubt and maybe that 0-4 doesn't happen...(yes it still hurts).
So would you put Jake Long in the HOF? He went 0 - 4 also but was one of the best OL ever to play at Michigan.
Mike Martin, David Molk, RVB all went 0-4 against Michigan St. So does that mean you wouldn't include any of them since none of them beat our rival?
Well, the guy did say 'his first thought' was let's put Mike Hart in this thing. That is the part that I thought was ridiculous. His first thought was of Mike Hart.
I would vote for Jake Long and Chad Henne before I voted for Hart. But It is important to define what constitutes being worthy of enshrinement first, though. Is it just being a really good player or is it something else?
As for going 0-4 against MSU, it is regretable but not the same as doing it against OSU. Just a totally different thing.
Hart was the banner image of MGoBlog for years, and not in a "we've randomly used this running back to make a blueprint of football" kind of way but in a "look at this little dude burrowing his way into the end zone when everyone thought he should be stopped 6 yards ago" kind of way.
In addition to being the "EVERYBODY EVERYBODY DAVID HARRIS IS AWESOME LISTEN TO ME DAVID HARRIS IS AWESOME I SWEAR DAMMIT STOP GIVING PRESCOTT BURGESS HONORS IT WAS HARRIS!" site, MGoBlog was basically the Mike Hart Fan Club for several years.
Although you are entitled to your opinion, your opinion, sir, is wrong.
My first thought was "Woodson has to make it one way or another, time scale be damned".
Definately a tremendous idea and yes I'd say that the inaugural class should be larger this first year. I also agree that this MgoHOF should admit specific teams, administrators, etc in some way, shape, or form. I do also like the idea of admitting one non-revenue sport person a year too. The problem with this is that the blog at large doesnt know the merits of a gymnast, field hockey, or whatever player. I know we do have some posters that specifically follow some of these sports, perhaps this would be a way to tap into their expertise on this all and have them present such and such person's case and go from there. Kind of like how the NFL HOF admits senior candidates. Lastly this whole process would be a great way to bridge that summer gap between the end of basketball and hockey to the begining of fall football practice. Definately would go great in the months of May-July or so.
This is a great idea
It would be cool to give the inductees the option of giving an "acceptance speech" in the form of a blog post on the front page.
That would be amazing. Dilithium in print.
That is my favorite idea thus far
but man Kellen Russell is the man, I don't care if it is a non- aq sport or whatever. He is in any Michigan HOF hands down.
I love the idea of 95% needed the first year after graduating, then it goes down each year to be more inclusive.
I dislike the idea of setting aside a certain 3 spots each year, one for each major sport. HOF members should be admitted only when it's really warranted, otherwise you'll end up with no one to induct for basketball next year (Vogrich is the only senior, IIRC)
Also like the idea of a larger inaugural class, and the individual plays idea is an intriguing one. Perhaps another distinction could be handed out each year like a special achievement award at the Oscars if something seems worthy: for instance, I'd deem Stu & Novak both deserve recognition for being so unheralded and helping drag M basketball up to its current level.
My first vote would have to be casted to Mr. Howard for Football, Mr. Larkin for Baseball, Mr. Rice for Basketball, and Mr. Berenson for Hockey
While all are good candidates for an All-Time list I agree with Brian that we should stick to post-2005 figures, it stops us from awkward debates about athletes from different eras getting in or not.
could you please explain how in the holy hell Mr. Woodson didn't make your list?
I just went with one from each. Desmond was first, Charles would be second.
I suggest that you can have up to 5 inductees from each graduating class, emphasis on up to. It would be done in 3 rounds:
1. Throw out names for consideration.
2. Vote each name individually to determine if they deserve to get in. 75% could probably work because of step 3.
3. If more than 5 people receive approval, then everyone votes for their top 3 and the 5 that receive the most votes get in. If 5 or fewer receive approval then that's your inductee class right there.
In addition to this, each year we can add 1 new inductee from years past and we'd go through the same selection process as above except step 1. For step 1, the pool of players is decided by players that received approval in step 2 after graduating or players that have played professionally in their sports for at least 3 years. There would have to be some sort of grandfather rule for people like Mike Hart, etc.
There should be something we bestow upon these legends. Five or more years ago this thing would have been just a list... but now we live in a time where Tremendous or Ace can make a few calls and have these legitimate heroes put their DVRs on pause just to play in our obsessive little games.
We need to give them... something. A special shirt, an elite membership of the blog, a comp of the 2009 HTTV... I don't know, something.
But yeah, love the idea.
C'mon SixZero, do I have to think of everything around here? Now, do you have a design ready?
I also think the award needs to intentionally be somewhat goofy. It's going to be unintentionally goofy if we look like we're taking a blog hall of fame too seriously...I realize that I maybe didn't need to say this.
The MegaBowl from Semi-Pro.
The trophy's 12 feet high! And it's glorious!
thinking about David Molk's expression/reaction when he saw the UPS guys roll up to his house with a twelve foot long box. They better be wearing chest protectors, the headbut is definitely coming.
How about their own commererative Blochhams induction episode/ You up for that Six Zero?
Yes, we should have a blog HOF. Brian's blog...Brian sets the criteria. I trust his opinion as to what qualifies someone for it.
and I really agree with Magnus' idea. Large initial class and then 3-5 per year.
If Based Solely on What They Did for Michigan:
Denard, Manningham, Hart, Novak, Douglass, D-Mo, [Insert Hockey Players here]
If Based Purely on Ironic MGoBlog Soft-spots:
Taco Pants, Zoltan, Will Hagerup's Face, Laval Lucas-Perry, Anthony Wright, Ronald Johnson/Kris Frost/Dee Hart/Alex Kozan, The Steiner Brothers, The_Knowledge
Why does everyone always forget about The Notorious C.O.N.E. ???
Febreeze ladies and gentlemen! His legend must live on in our hearts. He must never be forgotten.
I officially nominate him now.
Now I just need to get to 100 points in order to vote. I think the idea of having a list of players to choose from is a good idea. It shouldn't be limited to 1 athlete per sport.
Definite sliding scale acceptance hurdle based upon years since graduation. Maybe 90% 1st year, 80% after 3 years and 70% after 5.
What about us 25 year plus alums? While there was no blog back in the day, some of us can remember some great athletes from that era that may warrant consideration. Just because we may have recently discovered the blog (or it didn't exist) doesn't necessarily mean we should be precluded from its composition; or does it?
I think the point of excluding pre-2005 players is that if you go back far enough, we will be discussing people that no one living has ever saw play. I mean, I'm sure Benny Friedman and Tom Harmon were just as awesome as they are described in the things I've read about them--but having been born decades after they played I really can't compare those players to today's players. Younger fans of today might remember Chad Henne or John Navarre or even Tom Brady, but how can someone born in 1989 offer a meaningful opinion on whether John Kolesar belongs in the HOF? You have to draw the line somewhere, and using the year of the blog's launch seems to be a logical cut-off point.
Ask anyone who saw him play and the answer is yes.
One more idea...a HOF for BEST threads, reserved for the iconic threads we see every now and then.
I will explain why -
I started reading this blog in the weeks leading up to signing day 2011, a about 14 months ago. After signing day, everything recruiting related cooled off. But, during the next few months, I really enjoyed reading some of the OT and other non-recruiting related posts for the insight, humor, and user comments. A select few are in the HOF in my heart.
I say this because I think a tab at the top for HOF threads would be an attractive link for new users (it would have been for me) to get the "hooked" like I quickly became.
I think it truely could boost the readership, especially in the off-peak times.
Just a thought from a fan...
I didn't think he was being serious... was he?
No I really was serious. In all the times (at least every waking hour) I have been on this site, I have never seen that link - just flat out overlooked it.
Consider me a fat kid in a candy store.
Top right, under "useful stuff"
I think this is a great idea. I am personally in favor of the sliding scale model, starting at 95% and decreasing until it hits 75%. As far as class size goes, 3 revenue sports + 1 non-revenue per year seems reasonable. Inagural class size should be 21 revenue and 7 non-revenue max, matching the number eligible for each year the blog has been active prior to now.
The question is, would the entire career of a player have to fall within the existence of the blog in order to be eligible?
If you are only going back to 2005, then instead of having a larger inaugural class, why not just construct retroactive ballots for each year since then and conduct a separate vote for each year. With one vote per month, we would be caught up by fall.
I would suggest an 85% requirement with a limit of 5 inductees per year across all sports. Anyone who got over 85% but did not finish in the top 5 would be carried over to next year's ballot.
I agree the bar needs to be real high. I don't want to look at someone ten years down the road and be ashamed that they got into the HOF.
Obviously guys like Henne, Hart, and Long need to be first ballot guys. What about Lloyd Carr? Do we count his whole tenure or just his years while the blog existed? Woodson should get in for his continued work with Mott's.
I nominate Jordan Kovacs for being the first serviceable safety we have seen since the dawn of the new millennium.
We all love RVB, Novak, Hunwick, et al, but five years from now their names will only come up in posts where the author is trying to show off his U-M fandom IQ. Having a repository for the who, what, whys of a player would be good, but creating your own HoF just to keep their memory alive feels funny to me.
A HoF might be too much, but a "MGoBlog Honors" status that still gives a detailed write-up of the player could still get the "we like(d) this guy" vibe across without stepping into the HoF trap. Tiering the players based on later success seems like a lot of parsing/work just to keep the new HoF from being a joke in others' eyes.
Lastly, even with the tiering/pyramid this is just setting the blog up for opposing fans to go "LOL, we have real stars while Zack Novak is a U-M HoFer". I know we all say we don't care what our rivals think and say, but we do. Also, what happens if one of our HoFers gets in trouble with the law or is found using PEDs? Does he get taken down?
No...I really don't care that other teams' fans might say "LOL Novak is a blog Hall of Famer over there." That's such a silly, inconsequential thing to worry about, for us and for them.