Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Jun 8, 2019 14:01:26 GMT -5
Hello fellow members of the CDFL. As you may or may not know, we have a Hall of Fame. If you do not know, go check it out. Anyway, previous to this season, we only included original members of the MFL (The first iteration of this league) in the voting process. However, this past year, we moved to include members of the NFFL (The second version of our league), and the plan was to include all members this coming year. Unfortunately, after voting, we've run into a bit of a snag, and finding a solution appears to be moving as quickly as molasses (Or molasses' twin brother who doesn't move at all). That's where you come in--the league at large.
As of now, with all 18 in the committee having voted, the vote stands at 14 for one member, and is tied at 2 for the other 2 members. The problem exists for several reasons.
Reason 1: We never agreed to a very specific criteria since no consensus was ever reached, and hashing it out, and re-hashing it, and so on wasn't being productive. So we simply agreed that in any year, the top-two vote getters would get in the Hall of Fame. Because the two teams are tied at 2, that would mean three teams would get in this year--something one of the league's commissioners is against, as are other parties, because they're afraid that if we continue even at the rate of two per year, we will too quickly deplete and exhaust all deserving candidates.
Reason 2: One of the candidates who received two votes has expressly said he thinks that 2 votes isn't enough for induction, and therefore does not believe he should be admitted this year. However, there is no threshold or cap on voting to prevent overvotes like the candidate who received 14 experienced. Therefore, knowing that two members got in, and without preventing them from doing so, almost every party simply voted for the most-deserving candidate, and did not seem to give any consideration for voting for anyone else--partly causing this dilemma.
Reason 3: Despite the low tally of votes--just like it was last year when Cecil only garnered 4 votes and was admitted in (Although that situation very similarly compares to this one, as active members were ineligible to receive votes until late in the process, therefore meaning that Cecil very likely would've received many more votes if he had been eligible throughout the voting process)--the other commissioner thinks we should just move ahead as the rules say, and induct the members as our rules state (Though these rules, of course, are not in the rulebook and probably should be).
So essentially, I see two paths to concluding this ordeal: 1. Just going ahead with the three candidates who were selected per our HOF rules, or 2. Amending the rules to either set thresholds/percentages to allow inclusion into the Hall of Fame, or reducing the size of the committee...maybe even changing how the voting is done, or perhaps setting an overvoting limit so that once a candidate is in, he/she can receive no more votes. I'm open to all suggestions--so please provide your input--but here are some of the most frequently suggested:
Please give this a moment of your time, and vote in our poll above about what to do about this situation, and thank you for your input.
As of now, with all 18 in the committee having voted, the vote stands at 14 for one member, and is tied at 2 for the other 2 members. The problem exists for several reasons.
Reason 1: We never agreed to a very specific criteria since no consensus was ever reached, and hashing it out, and re-hashing it, and so on wasn't being productive. So we simply agreed that in any year, the top-two vote getters would get in the Hall of Fame. Because the two teams are tied at 2, that would mean three teams would get in this year--something one of the league's commissioners is against, as are other parties, because they're afraid that if we continue even at the rate of two per year, we will too quickly deplete and exhaust all deserving candidates.
Reason 2: One of the candidates who received two votes has expressly said he thinks that 2 votes isn't enough for induction, and therefore does not believe he should be admitted this year. However, there is no threshold or cap on voting to prevent overvotes like the candidate who received 14 experienced. Therefore, knowing that two members got in, and without preventing them from doing so, almost every party simply voted for the most-deserving candidate, and did not seem to give any consideration for voting for anyone else--partly causing this dilemma.
Reason 3: Despite the low tally of votes--just like it was last year when Cecil only garnered 4 votes and was admitted in (Although that situation very similarly compares to this one, as active members were ineligible to receive votes until late in the process, therefore meaning that Cecil very likely would've received many more votes if he had been eligible throughout the voting process)--the other commissioner thinks we should just move ahead as the rules say, and induct the members as our rules state (Though these rules, of course, are not in the rulebook and probably should be).
So essentially, I see two paths to concluding this ordeal: 1. Just going ahead with the three candidates who were selected per our HOF rules, or 2. Amending the rules to either set thresholds/percentages to allow inclusion into the Hall of Fame, or reducing the size of the committee...maybe even changing how the voting is done, or perhaps setting an overvoting limit so that once a candidate is in, he/she can receive no more votes. I'm open to all suggestions--so please provide your input--but here are some of the most frequently suggested:
- Allow only one HOF member per year
- Make a minimum threshold (5 is the number most often suggested, but I suppose that depends on the size of the voting base), by either number or percentage, for induction
- Change voting to a ballot format, and allow multiple votes (One for every candidate who the respondent thinks deserves to be in)
- Reducing the size of the HOF Committee to something around the size of the TRC
- Capping overvoting at whatever the threshold is set at to weed out superfluous and wasted votes
Please give this a moment of your time, and vote in our poll above about what to do about this situation, and thank you for your input.
