“Football Morning in America’s” Peter King admitted that he didn’t vote for Troy Polamalu for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, even though he felt Polamalu was worthy of being in the top five.
His rationale?
King felt Polamalu had the votes to get in anyway (which proved true), so he wanted to throw his vote elsewhere to help boost the chances of other candidates he deemed worthy of entry: Tony Boselli, Steve Atwater, John Lynch, Edgerrin James and Steve Hutchinson.
A lot of people hated that King did such a thing with his vote.
What King did is blatantly irresponsible because he voted in a dishonest manner. It's not a hero move to vote for people that don't belong in the top 5 of eligible candidates. Vote for your top 5. Do your job. Stop holding people's legacies hostage by playing a game!
— Coach Stenger (@StengerCoach) February 4, 2020
Nah, should vote for the best on the ballot, if u geniuinly think someone is not deserving that’s one thing, but not voting for someone cause they don’t “need” ur vote is just stupid
— Joseph Bruno (@JBruno289) February 4, 2020
Why stop there? They should form alliances, get kickbacks from corporations, maybe a little Russian meddling. Let’s make it all political baby!
— Jey Bag f Dnuts (@joeybagovdonuts) February 4, 2020
I think the bigger issue is that King has admitted he’s done it before, so we can assume it can happen again. He’s playing a system, and favoring his votes above other members of the committee. There’s an arrogance to it.
— Craig A Bryan (@CraigABryan1) February 4, 2020
Voting like this is how Al Pacino got an Oscar for "Scent of a Woman". Just saying.
— Michael DeCourcy (@tsnmike) February 4, 2020
Well, I’m not going to argue with Mike on that last tweet!
But, for everyone else trashing King, I want to raise two points.
If he withheld a Polamalu vote for Alan Faneca, would you be so mad?
Be honest.
If that suddenly changes your opinion, then shut up. Because the act is the same regardless of who benefits. Even if it’s a “Stiller, n’at.”
Second, what’s so different between King admitting what he did, as opposed to the many who have frequently voted on the premise of “Well, I voted for ‘player X’ in year six on the ballot, instead of ‘player Y’ because ‘player Y’ is going to get in eventually. And this was his first chance.”
That’s been going on forever, and we don’t make a federal case of it.
Stop trying to apply a “one man, one vote” mentality to this, as if we’re talking about voting for a governor or a president.
This Hall of Fame voting system is so flawed, and such a moving target, conventional notions of “voting according to your principles” are out the window.
Voters do the “I’ll vote for your guy, if you vote for my guy” negotiations all the time.
I get the “just vote the top five” mentality. King should. Everyone should. But these voters always choose based on factors aside from who deserves it.
Position. Times as a finalist. Teammates already in the Hall. Personal grudges.
If King is using a strategy to get around those flaws, I’m not offended. If he sees this as the best possible way to get the most deserving people in Canton, in the end, what’s the problem?
King’s method is not a direct way of accomplishing the task, but isn’t this equivalent to voting your conscience if your conscience is telling you six guys should get inducted? If you are finding the best possible way to get them all through the doors, that should be the end game.
If I had been in King’s shoes, I would’ve done a traditional “straight ticket.” I would’ve voted my top five, as most of those complaining suggest he should’ve done.
But the process stinks. And what King did is a middle finger to the process.
That’s lousy. But if the process is so flawed, and this is the best way he thinks to get deserving people in, I feel he is doing what he thinks is best with his vote.
For the sake of debate — let’s say you are a voter. You see six men worthy of entry. Does it matter how they got in? Or just that they get in somehow, someway?
In other words, if your top choice is Polamalu and your sixth choice is Faneca and that vote for Faneca helps more than one for Polamalu, that shouldn’t be looked at as a sin.
In response to that argument, I got this retort quite often.
What if more and more voters started doing this...
— Matt Fleming (@Planticulture) February 4, 2020
Gee, I don’t know. If that were to happen, maybe they’d have to adjust the archaic process they’ve been using for years.
And that would be fine with me.
