File this one under “ooooook?”
Sports Illustrated’s Peter King has always positioned himself as the the public arbiter and keeper of the flame for the Pro Football Hall of Fame voting committee. King has always taken the task very seriously and notably shamed Dan Le Batard for giving his Baseball HoF vote over to Deadspin readers.
That’s fine. That’s King’s prerogative and if he’s passionate about the importance and sanctity of the Hall of Fame vote, no matter how self-inflated, more power to him. But his multi-tweet barrage defending the Hall credentials of alleged serial-rapist Darren Sharper (on the ballot in 2016) came out of left field.
Sharper1: Re the many who have questioned Darren Sharper as a candidate for the Pro Football Hall of Fame class of 2016, a few thoughts:>>
— Peter King (@peter_king) February 4, 2015
Sharper2: The 46 HoF voters are asked to consider only on-field factors for ex-players. That is what I do. He may be shy …>
— Peter King (@peter_king) February 4, 2015
Sharper3: …of qualifications, but he is certainly a candidate. 2000s all-decade player. 6th all-time w/63 INTs (Reed: 64). He’s a candidate.
— Peter King (@peter_king) February 4, 2015
Sharper4: We would be shirking our duties if we did not consider him. What has happened since should not be factored in.
— Peter King (@peter_king) February 4, 2015
The bylaws of the Pro Football Hall of Fame forbid the 46 voters from considering players’ off-field lives.
— Peter King (@peter_king) February 4, 2015
If I said, “I will not consider Sharper for induction because he has been accused of multiple rapes,” I would resign from the committee.
— Peter King (@peter_king) February 4, 2015
There’s horrible people in every Hall of Fame that have done some pretty nasty things. In some respect, it’s difficult to objectively draw a line and say “this offense still gets you in, and this offense doesn’t.”
But at some point, isn’t there a human element that allows you to live in those gray areas and make a judgment call in voting? Isn’t there a human element that allows you to say “pass” when Darren Sharper’s name comes up in the discussion next year just because what he’s accused of doing is so terrible? And it’s not like he’s even an automatic candidate anyways.
To be honest, it’s not that King is “right” or “wrong” in his judgment here. King might believe he’s taking up the noble cause of upholding the Hall of Fame’s mission and purpose once again as he’s always done, but this is a strange way of doing it.
