The Bill Belichick Hall of Fame snub continues to resonate, which continues to underscore how ridiculous it all is.
One thing that remains unclear is how close Belichick came to getting in. Was it close? Or was it a blowout? The answer possibly has emerged.
In the middle of a column from Gerry Dulac of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in which he both defends a deeply flawed process and insists that no transparency is owed to the public, an intriguing nugget is buried.
From Dulac: “To be elected, a candidate has to receive at least 80% of the votes, or, in this instance, 40 of the 50. Belichick, according to a published report, did not. He received 39.”
Because Dulac also explains that, if none of the five candidates who were lumped into a nonsensical enshrinement Royal Rumble (Belichick, Robert Kraft, Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, L.C. Greenwood) appeared on 80 percent of the pick-three-and-only-three ballots, the one with the most votes would get in.
If Belichick got to 39, that would mean at least one of the other four got 40 or more.
It’s still not entirely clear whether Dulac is reporting that Belichick got 39. That’s what Dulac seems to be saying. And if that’s what he’s reporting, that should have been the headline to a separate article — one that would have received far more attention and traffic and possibly revenue for a publication that will be shuttering permanently in May.
Dulac blames the failure to enshrine Belichick on the notion that, of the five candidates, Belichick should have been the first of the three on all 50 ballots. And Dulac is right about that. Of those five individuals, Belichick is clearly the most deserving of a bronze bust, now.
But the outcome proves the problem with the process. Whoever concocted it didn’t take into account the possibility that some of the voters would rationalize focusing on others (like the three players nominated by the seniors committee) who may never again be that close to getting in. (That’s how Vahe Gregorian of the Kansas City Star explained his decision to pass on Belichick.)
And as to the transparency issue, Dulac’s “how dare the public want to know” take hinges on the goofy comparison to a coach not being transparent with the media. Coaches have many valid reasons to not disclose certain information, especially during an ongoing season of games. There’s no valid reason to treat the Hall of Fame ballots like nuclear secrets.
The Associated Press now discloses all votes for the various awards to be announced on Thursday. The Hall of Fame should do the same. In an age with far too little honesty and transparency, it’s even more important to ditch the you-don’t-need-to-know attitude on anything and everything for which there’s no valid reason to not know. Especially in situations where the promise of complete secrecy for voters can lead to unfair results.
If all 50 voters knew when they picked three of the five candidates that, eventually, their selections would be disclosed, they’d factor in the reality that they’d have no choice but to defend not putting Belichick at the top of the list.
Instead, folks like Dulac are now defending a process that was poorly designed, poorly implemented, and poorly executed. Given the outcome and the reaction to it, wagging a finger at those who want answers seems to be a poor strategy.
