Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
2013 HOF class
16 views
Skip to first unread message
bob.p...@gmail.com
May 24, 2012, 1:23:10 AM5/24/12
to
No real qualms about the 2013 Hall of Fame class, but I think it's clearly time
to change the selection process.
The point was stressed repeatedly by several different people that there were
no locks in this year's class. All the "locks"--Petty, Pearson, Earnhardt, Allison, Yarborough, Waltrip, France etc.--are in now.
If we continue with this 25 nominees and 5 inductees every year, just think of
how badly diluted the Hall is going to be just ten years from now. This
year's entire 25 person nominee slate, plus ANOTHER ENTIRE SLATE full of people
who haven't even been nominated once yet will all be IN THE HALL right next to
Petty, Pearson, Earnhardt and France. That's crazy.
Again, I have no qualm with Buck Baker getting in, but I do have a problem with
ANYONE getting in with just 39% of the vote.
Let the nominating committee come up with a slate of candidates they feel are
true Hall of Famers. No padding the list just to reach an arbitrary number.
Then, members of the voting committee can vote for as many or as few as they
want. You have to be selected on at least two thirds of the ballots to get in.
If that means there are years when nobody makes it, so be it. Everyone in the
Hall should be there because they deserve it, not just because they need five
more people every year.
On another issue, it was really great to see Ken Squier and Barney Hall
recognized and that there will be a special media award given in their honor
every year.
to change the selection process.
The point was stressed repeatedly by several different people that there were
no locks in this year's class. All the "locks"--Petty, Pearson, Earnhardt, Allison, Yarborough, Waltrip, France etc.--are in now.
If we continue with this 25 nominees and 5 inductees every year, just think of
how badly diluted the Hall is going to be just ten years from now. This
year's entire 25 person nominee slate, plus ANOTHER ENTIRE SLATE full of people
who haven't even been nominated once yet will all be IN THE HALL right next to
Petty, Pearson, Earnhardt and France. That's crazy.
Again, I have no qualm with Buck Baker getting in, but I do have a problem with
ANYONE getting in with just 39% of the vote.
Let the nominating committee come up with a slate of candidates they feel are
true Hall of Famers. No padding the list just to reach an arbitrary number.
Then, members of the voting committee can vote for as many or as few as they
want. You have to be selected on at least two thirds of the ballots to get in.
If that means there are years when nobody makes it, so be it. Everyone in the
Hall should be there because they deserve it, not just because they need five
more people every year.
On another issue, it was really great to see Ken Squier and Barney Hall
recognized and that there will be a special media award given in their honor
every year.
Anna Khonda
May 24, 2012, 10:22:41 AM5/24/12
to
<bob.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> No real qualms about the 2013 Hall of Fame class, but I think it's clearly
> time
> to change the selection process.
I know I admit I can't stand the guy.
I'm not a huge Petty fan either, but I know,
and agree he had to be one of the first.
So I'm willing to not let personal opinion shade reason.
I agree with you Bob.
It won't take too long before Hut Stricklin gets in.
The same thing happened in our local town's HoF.
The town was ~25,000 when they started it. (only 30,000 now)
Same deal. Induct four or five each year.
One year, they inducted a woman, who at an early age
was Soapbox Derby champion.
Come on. Really??
Hall of Fame?
--
Dan
A hungry termite walks into a bar and asks,
"Is the bar tender here?"
> No real qualms about the 2013 Hall of Fame class, but I think it's clearly
> time
> to change the selection process.
> If we continue with this 25 nominees and 5 inductees every year, just
> think of
> how badly diluted the Hall is going to be
Rusty Wallace?
> think of
> how badly diluted the Hall is going to be
I know I admit I can't stand the guy.
I'm not a huge Petty fan either, but I know,
and agree he had to be one of the first.
So I'm willing to not let personal opinion shade reason.
I agree with you Bob.
It won't take too long before Hut Stricklin gets in.
The same thing happened in our local town's HoF.
The town was ~25,000 when they started it. (only 30,000 now)
Same deal. Induct four or five each year.
One year, they inducted a woman, who at an early age
was Soapbox Derby champion.
Come on. Really??
Hall of Fame?
--
Dan
A hungry termite walks into a bar and asks,
"Is the bar tender here?"
John McCoy
May 24, 2012, 1:36:40 PM5/24/12
to
"Anna Khonda" <Anna_...@nospam.com> wrote in
news:jplcmg$s96$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> <bob.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> No real qualms about the 2013 Hall of Fame class, but I think it's
>> clearly time
>> to change the selection process.
>> If we continue with this 25 nominees and 5 inductees every year, just
>> think of
>> how badly diluted the Hall is going to be
>
> Rusty Wallace?
>
> I know I admit I can't stand the guy.
> I'm not a huge Petty fan either, but I know,
> and agree he had to be one of the first.
> So I'm willing to not let personal opinion shade reason.
>
> I agree with you Bob.
> It won't take too long before Hut Stricklin gets in.
I don't have any issue with Wallace getting in - he was
a notably successful driver with a bunch of wins during
the period of NASCAR's greatest success, you have to think
that he was an essential part of that success.
But I agree with you, the current plan is about to run out
of meaningful names. The voters don't seem to be knowledgable
enough about NASCAR in the 50's, or NASCAR series other than
Cup, to support 5 per year.
Requiring 75% or 67% of the vote to demonstrate true "fame"
is not a bad idea.
And, of course, putting Smokey Yunick on the ballot would
also make it more meaningful. His ommission, which is
clearly intentional, for personal differences 50 years ago
between people who now are dead, significantly detracts
from the entire HOF concept.
John
news:jplcmg$s96$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> <bob.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> No real qualms about the 2013 Hall of Fame class, but I think it's
>> clearly time
>> to change the selection process.
>> If we continue with this 25 nominees and 5 inductees every year, just
>> think of
>> how badly diluted the Hall is going to be
>
> Rusty Wallace?
>
> I know I admit I can't stand the guy.
> I'm not a huge Petty fan either, but I know,
> and agree he had to be one of the first.
> So I'm willing to not let personal opinion shade reason.
>
> I agree with you Bob.
> It won't take too long before Hut Stricklin gets in.
a notably successful driver with a bunch of wins during
the period of NASCAR's greatest success, you have to think
that he was an essential part of that success.
But I agree with you, the current plan is about to run out
of meaningful names. The voters don't seem to be knowledgable
enough about NASCAR in the 50's, or NASCAR series other than
Cup, to support 5 per year.
Requiring 75% or 67% of the vote to demonstrate true "fame"
is not a bad idea.
And, of course, putting Smokey Yunick on the ballot would
also make it more meaningful. His ommission, which is
clearly intentional, for personal differences 50 years ago
between people who now are dead, significantly detracts
from the entire HOF concept.
John
Anna Khonda
May 24, 2012, 10:40:52 PM5/24/12
to
"John McCoy" <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> I don't have any issue with Wallace getting in -
I know... like I said, just not a fan...
But.. he never won the Daytona 500 (or any race there)
Never won at Talladega.
Never won at Darlington.
Never won at Indy.
I just think you need to win something of that magnatude
to get in as early as he did..
Do you think if Bill Elliott had not been racing part time,
he would have got in before Wallace?
I think probly.
Curious..
> I don't have any issue with Wallace getting in -
But.. he never won the Daytona 500 (or any race there)
Never won at Talladega.
Never won at Darlington.
Never won at Indy.
I just think you need to win something of that magnatude
to get in as early as he did..
Do you think if Bill Elliott had not been racing part time,
he would have got in before Wallace?
I think probly.
Curious..
Anna Khonda
May 24, 2012, 10:52:26 PM5/24/12
to
follow up...
I wasn't sure how many races RW had started at the biggies...
Charlotte
Daytona
Talladega
Indy
150 starts.... 2 wins.
He had more total wins than Bill Elliott, but Elliott won
on all of the majors.
Not to mention the first million dollar bonus.
And lets face it.
When people think about NASCAR racing, it's usually
not Loudon or Pocono..
It's the biggies....
I wasn't sure how many races RW had started at the biggies...
Charlotte
Daytona
Talladega
Indy
150 starts.... 2 wins.
He had more total wins than Bill Elliott, but Elliott won
on all of the majors.
Not to mention the first million dollar bonus.
And lets face it.
When people think about NASCAR racing, it's usually
not Loudon or Pocono..
It's the biggies....
Anna Khonda
May 24, 2012, 11:11:48 PM5/24/12
to
"Anna Khonda" <Anna_...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> follow up...
>
> I wasn't sure how many races RW had started at the biggies...
>
> Charlotte
> Daytona
> Talladega
> Indy
>
> 150 starts.... 2 wins.
> He had more total wins than Bill Elliott, but Elliott won
> on all of the majors.
> Not to mention the first million dollar bonus.
> And lets face it.
> When people think about NASCAR racing, it's usually
> not Loudon or Pocono..
> It's the biggies....
follow up, to my own follow up...
(I should be in bed)
I forgot Darlington...
so it's:
193 starts... 2 wins on NASCAR's signature races.
HoF? this soon?
nah......
> follow up...
>
> I wasn't sure how many races RW had started at the biggies...
>
> Charlotte
> Daytona
> Talladega
> Indy
>
> 150 starts.... 2 wins.
> He had more total wins than Bill Elliott, but Elliott won
> on all of the majors.
> Not to mention the first million dollar bonus.
> And lets face it.
> When people think about NASCAR racing, it's usually
> not Loudon or Pocono..
> It's the biggies....
(I should be in bed)
I forgot Darlington...
so it's:
193 starts... 2 wins on NASCAR's signature races.
HoF? this soon?
nah......
John McCoy
May 25, 2012, 1:09:38 PM5/25/12
to
"Anna Khonda" <Anna_...@nospam.com> wrote in news:jpmnuo$6i5$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> Do you think if Bill Elliott had not been racing part time,
> he would have got in before Wallace?
> I think probly.
> Curious..
Agree with you 100% on that - of the drivers from that
era Elliott would clearly be more deserving - but as you
say, he's still (somewhat) active, so not yet eligible.
A more interesting question would be, should Alan Kulwicki
have gotten in before Wallace. Granted, Wallace won many
more races, and would have even if Kulwicki had not died.
But Kulwicki won a championship with a fraction of the
resources of other drivers, and that should count for
something.
John
@speranza.aioe.org:
> Do you think if Bill Elliott had not been racing part time,
> he would have got in before Wallace?
> I think probly.
> Curious..
era Elliott would clearly be more deserving - but as you
say, he's still (somewhat) active, so not yet eligible.
A more interesting question would be, should Alan Kulwicki
have gotten in before Wallace. Granted, Wallace won many
more races, and would have even if Kulwicki had not died.
But Kulwicki won a championship with a fraction of the
resources of other drivers, and that should count for
something.
John
leonard hofstadter
May 25, 2012, 2:37:09 PM5/25/12
to
only remaining eligible with 50+ wins.
Kulwicki will get in eventually, champion but only 5 wins.
Anna Khonda
May 25, 2012, 2:48:49 PM5/25/12
to
> A more interesting question would be, should Alan Kulwicki
> have gotten in before Wallace.
> ...... Kulwicki won a championship with a fraction of the
> have gotten in before Wallace.
> resources of other drivers, and that should count for
> something.
>
> John
It does count.
> something.
>
> John
Man... that's a real tough one.
Gotta be careful not to turn it into a sympathy vote.
Kind of like Davey Allison.
Davey had a great career, just short.
He won 19 of 190 races.
10%!!! that's pretty remarkable.
Almost half of them top 10's.
John McCoy
May 26, 2012, 10:27:46 AM5/26/12
to
"Anna Khonda" <Anna_...@nospam.com> wrote in news:jpoglm$fsl$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> "John McCoy" <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
>> A more interesting question would be, should Alan Kulwicki
>> have gotten in before Wallace.
>> ...... Kulwicki won a championship with a fraction of the
>> resources of other drivers, and that should count for
>> something.
>>
>> John
>
> It does count.
> Man... that's a real tough one.
> Gotta be careful not to turn it into a sympathy vote.
> Kind of like Davey Allison.
> Davey had a great career, just short.
> He won 19 of 190 races.
> 10%!!! that's pretty remarkable.
> Almost half of them top 10's.
Well, there's a good comparison, actually. I don't view Allison
as being as deserving as Kulwicki, because he had a much easier
road - hired on to one of the top teams right from the start,
had the best of equipment all thru his career. Sort of like
Kyle Busch to make a modern comparison.
Whereas Kulwicki built his own team from the ground up, and
any advantage he had in equipment he gained from thinking of
it with his own mind. To me, that's a big deal.
John
@speranza.aioe.org:
> "John McCoy" <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
>> A more interesting question would be, should Alan Kulwicki
>> have gotten in before Wallace.
>> ...... Kulwicki won a championship with a fraction of the
>> resources of other drivers, and that should count for
>> something.
>>
>> John
>
> It does count.
> Man... that's a real tough one.
> Gotta be careful not to turn it into a sympathy vote.
> Kind of like Davey Allison.
> Davey had a great career, just short.
> He won 19 of 190 races.
> 10%!!! that's pretty remarkable.
> Almost half of them top 10's.
as being as deserving as Kulwicki, because he had a much easier
road - hired on to one of the top teams right from the start,
had the best of equipment all thru his career. Sort of like
Kyle Busch to make a modern comparison.
Whereas Kulwicki built his own team from the ground up, and
any advantage he had in equipment he gained from thinking of
it with his own mind. To me, that's a big deal.
John
John McCoy
May 26, 2012, 10:23:31 AM5/26/12
to
leonard hofstadter <len...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jpofvv$3nr$1@dont-
email.me:
> Rusty got in and was nominated in the first place because he was the
> only remaining eligible with 50+ wins.
>
> Kulwicki will get in eventually, champion but only 5 wins.
Well, I think that's the point - sheer number of wins shouldn't
be the only criteria for "fame". It seems to me that there
are likely a number of drivers who, for one reason or another,
are deserving of "fame" despite not having huge win totals.
John
email.me:
> Rusty got in and was nominated in the first place because he was the
> only remaining eligible with 50+ wins.
>
> Kulwicki will get in eventually, champion but only 5 wins.
be the only criteria for "fame". It seems to me that there
are likely a number of drivers who, for one reason or another,
are deserving of "fame" despite not having huge win totals.
John
Chuck Steak
May 26, 2012, 11:55:56 AM5/26/12
to
In article John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Well, there's a good comparison, actually. I don't view Allison
>as being as deserving as Kulwicki, because he had a much easier
>road - hired on to one of the top teams right from the start,
>had the best of equipment all thru his career. Sort of like
>Kyle Busch to make a modern comparison.
>
>Whereas Kulwicki built his own team from the ground up, and
>any advantage he had in equipment he gained from thinking of
>it with his own mind. To me, that's a big deal.
>
>John
I hear that... but that is my point on the
>
>Well, there's a good comparison, actually. I don't view Allison
>as being as deserving as Kulwicki, because he had a much easier
>road - hired on to one of the top teams right from the start,
>had the best of equipment all thru his career. Sort of like
>Kyle Busch to make a modern comparison.
>
>Whereas Kulwicki built his own team from the ground up, and
>any advantage he had in equipment he gained from thinking of
>it with his own mind. To me, that's a big deal.
>
>John
"sympathy factor".. it's a tough call.
But The thing that makes the AK vote good for me,
is like you say, he was the epitome of the one man show,
and the last of that particular breed...
Here's a good question.
Who gets in first.
Not who gets "our" vote, but who gets in...
Alan?
Davey?
Wendell Scott?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan
I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made...
bob.p...@gmail.com
May 27, 2012, 1:58:03 AM5/27/12
to
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:55:56 AM UTC-4, Chuck Steak wrote:
> Here's a good question.
> Who gets in first.
> Not who gets "our" vote, but who gets in...
> Alan?
> Davey?
> Wendell Scott?
Who will or who should?
> Here's a good question.
> Who gets in first.
> Not who gets "our" vote, but who gets in...
> Alan?
> Davey?
> Wendell Scott?
Who will---all three, in Scott, Allison, Kulwicki order. Especially if they keep arbitrarily inducing five per year.
Who should--Kulwicki for sure, Allison, probably, but someone with the same stats and a different last name would be iffy. Scott, no way he should make it. Skin color should not matter one way or the other, and no other driver with similar career stats will ever come near induction.
John McCoy
May 27, 2012, 4:39:29 PM5/27/12
to
bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:d43e447c-5bea-4dea...@googlegroups.com:
> On Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:55:56 AM UTC-4, Chuck Steak wrote:
>
>> Here's a good question.
>> Who gets in first.
>> Not who gets "our" vote, but who gets in...
>> Alan?
>> Davey?
>> Wendell Scott?
>
> Who will or who should?
>
> Who will---all three, in Scott, Allison, Kulwicki order. Especially
> if they keep arbitrarily inducing five per year.
Yes, you're probably right. Allison had the people factor as
a driver, he could have been in the running for most popular
if he had lived. Kulwicki didn't have the same populist touch.
That will count when they start voting.
> Who should--Kulwicki for sure, Allison, probably, but someone with the
> same stats and a different last name would be iffy. Scott, no way he
> should make it. Skin color should not matter one way or the other,
> and no other driver with similar career stats will ever come near
> induction.
Agree with that too.
Say, Bob, do you think you could hit a carrige return every now
and again in those long lines? Google won't do it for you, and
it makes them hard to read.
John
news:d43e447c-5bea-4dea...@googlegroups.com:
> On Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:55:56 AM UTC-4, Chuck Steak wrote:
>
>> Here's a good question.
>> Who gets in first.
>> Not who gets "our" vote, but who gets in...
>> Alan?
>> Davey?
>> Wendell Scott?
>
> Who will or who should?
>
> Who will---all three, in Scott, Allison, Kulwicki order. Especially
> if they keep arbitrarily inducing five per year.
a driver, he could have been in the running for most popular
if he had lived. Kulwicki didn't have the same populist touch.
That will count when they start voting.
> Who should--Kulwicki for sure, Allison, probably, but someone with the
> same stats and a different last name would be iffy. Scott, no way he
> should make it. Skin color should not matter one way or the other,
> and no other driver with similar career stats will ever come near
> induction.
Say, Bob, do you think you could hit a carrige return every now
and again in those long lines? Google won't do it for you, and
it makes them hard to read.
John
bob.p...@gmail.com
May 28, 2012, 10:02:30 AM5/28/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:39:29 PM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
> Say, Bob, do you think you could hit a carrige return every now
> and again in those long lines? Google won't do it for you, and
> it makes them hard to read.
Sorry, I try to remember, but it keeps slipping an old man's mind.....
> Say, Bob, do you think you could hit a carrige return every now
> and again in those long lines? Google won't do it for you, and
> it makes them hard to read.
0 new messages