Should these writers be voting at all?

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Milbut

Pulled this off their website in regards to the election process "The Committee consists of one media representative from each pro football city with two from New York, inasmuch as that city has two teams in the National Football League. A 33rd member is a representative of the Pro Football Writers of America and there are 11 at-large delegates." So 44 guys/gals total it looks like get to vote on this induction into the hall if I'm reading it right. Can anybody really say with any confidence that the guy who made these same comments won't one day or isn't already a member of this committee? You can easily sit here and say, it's a simple award that doesn't really mean anything. (Not saying you did.) Writers vote for these awards, writers put players in the Hall, this isn't an example of the transcendent thinking I want deciding which players deserve to be inducted. Some writers voted the same because they didn't believe in a re-vote even if it happened, some changed their votes for moral reasons, this guy changed his vote because he wasn't completely sure the first time? You're really okay with that?

What exactly is the point you're trying to reach for here?

The award doesn't mean anything.

[Palo20]

This would never happen in baseball. While the award is not all that significant, Cushing's being voted in again shows the difference between baseball and football.

In baseball, the slightest connection between a player and PEDs, and that player is scarred for life. In football, these things are swept under the rug a bit more.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Palo20

This would never happen in baseball. While the award is not all that significant, Cushing's being voted in again shows the difference between baseball and football. In baseball, the slightest connection between a player and PEDs, and that player is scarred for life. In football, these things are swept under the rug a bit more.

Baseball fans/media overreact.

In baseball he'd be suspended for 50 games. The official decision the league is actually comparable. It's all the outside opinions that are different. And even with that said, nobody's talking about Manny anymore being nailed for the same thing.

[bkrich83]

I don't take sports writers appraisals of players or team seriously to begin with. Most are a bunch of hacks who really lack much knowledge of the game. No way in hell I am putting a lot of credence and or thought about who they give an award to.

Complete non-issue imo.

[metallicatz]

I don't think writers should get a vote on anything.....and tehy most certainly shouldn't be invovled in the HOF process in any way shape or form. It's disgusting to me that guys like Peter King get a say in who gets into the HOF.

[HealyMonster]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

What exactly is the point you're trying to reach for here? The award doesn't mean anything.

I disagree man. I mean, its the NFL Rookie of the Year award. It means something.

Its worth more than "I just decided to change my vote for no reason. Nothing to do with roids or anything, I just said what the hey and changed it up a bit" I am obviously paraphrasing but to say "The ROY means nothing, who cares how people vote" seems foolish if you really think about it.

Imagine if you were on a losing team rookie year but you showed up every day with a picture of the ROY award on your locker cause you were picked in the 3rd round but you want to be the best and it comes down to it and you read that "I voted for this guy cause I am from the same state as him" or something foolish like that. Even though the award "means nothing" in "HOF voting" that would ruin your weekend would it not?

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Renegade44

I disagree man. I mean, its the NFL Rookie of the Year award. It means something. Its worth more than "I just decided to change my vote for no reason. Nothing to do with roids or anything, I just said what the hey and changed it up a bit" I am obviously paraphrasing but to say "The ROY means nothing, who cares how people vote" seems foolish if you really think about it. Imagine if you were on a losing team rookie year but you showed up every day with a picture of the ROY award on your locker cause you were picked in the 3rd round but you want to be the best and it comes down to it and you read that "I voted for this guy cause I am from the same state as him" or something foolish like that. Even though the award "means nothing" in "HOF voting" that would ruin your weekend would it not?

lol, nah can't say it'd ruin my weekend. The problem with the assessment we're currently analyzing is that it seems like just digging for reasons to be upset about this. The bottom line is it's valid to be upset about someone having an unfair advantage over others. If we want to say that's resulted in wins, titles, millions of dollars... yeah, that's messed up. But we're analyzing how it helped get a ROY award, and in that sense the award means nothing.

It may have helped get him more money but that would be the fault of the Texans if it did, bc I think it's stupid to give bonuses for something determined as much by writers as what you actually did on the field in most cases. Other than that, the award does nothing to advance his career or his team. Sure, it makes you feel good inside but I don't think a big deal should be made over stuff like that. He can post his stats on his locker if he wants... that would speak louder to me than his ROY award. I'd probably tell him to get over himself.