Tuesday, June 07, 2005

HHOF: 'No Vacancy'

There have been some minor, minor rumblings about the Hall of Fame selections coming up from the major media and around blogdom. On that note, Toronto Sun writer Lance Hornsby weighed in today on the debate with a few candidates of his own.

The selection committee will consider a cast of good, but not spectacular, first-year candidates, pooled with holdovers from the 1990s who were lost in the shuffle.

You know, as a guy who has been to the Hall numerous times, both for assignments and as a regular Joe, I'd like to see the entry requirements beefed up. No offense intended to great guys like Bernie Federko, but the NHL's Hall is mighty full — and it's not because there are that many all-time greats to stick in there.

Four entries a year is a fine number if the likes of Ray Bourque and Paul Coffey are up that year, but why have that same number each and every year, even in the lean ones. Four inductions a year will mean an additional 100 faces etched up on the Hall's wall over the next 25 years, far too great a number when matched against the numbers of the true superstars. Patrick Roy? Come right in, there's a seat over here. Mr. Anderson? You buy a ticket like everyone else, good sir.

In addition to a player's NHL statistics, I'd also like to see consideration given to their pursuits once they've finished their playing days. Dale Hunter, for example, would receive increased consideration based on his masterful building of the 2005 London Knights, one of the best junior hockey teams in history.

Can a Hall of Fame ever have entrance requirements that are too tough? With the induction of a maximum of two players a year, entrance will be limited to the best of the best: the Art Ross, Norris, Conn Smythe, Hart and Vezina Trophy winners. And that, in this pundit's humble opinion, is the way it should be.



At 5:59 a.m., June 08, 2005, Blogger Michael said...

I think they did the NHL HOF a disservice when they waved the 3 year waiting rule for Mario and Wayne.

Of course they should be there, but they should wait 3 years like everyone else. I think the only time you should wave the 3 year retired rule is when a player tragically dies.

At 11:46 a.m., June 11, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice to see William Houston in the Globe bad mouthing Murray Costello's selection to the builder category. Costello did more to build hockey in a day than a smarmy hack like Houston did in a lifetime, yet he feels entitled to call Costello's contributions "thin"? Houston's smarmy gossip column is almost as embarrassing as Marty York's used to be.

At 12:06 p.m., June 11, 2005, Blogger James Mirtle said...

Houston is a journalist, not someone who is responsible for building the game. Not an apt comparison.

Of course, I can't offer an unbiased perspective, but I do believe that, in general, his column is one of the more interesting reads in the section.

At 2:59 p.m., June 13, 2005, Blogger n said...

"his column is one of the more interesting reads in the section" - Yeah but you're a hockey journalist insider, so it works for you. I'd much rather devote the column space to someone following Cdn amateur sports than his oft-incestuous insider talk.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker