Apologies for the tardiness of this - I actually had some sort of stuff going on yesterday, and my mind was shot when it came to ideas until later on in the evening.
There were lots of disappointed people yesterday when the 2010 inductees to the Hockey Hall of Fame were announced. Dino Ciccarelli made the cut over other eligible players such as Adam Oates, Dave Andreychuk, Doug Gilmour, Joe Nieuwendyk, Pavel Bure, and others - is this necessarily the best choice? Wyshynski had a great piece up on Puck Daddy today taking aim at what people consider qualifications for the Hockey Hall of Fame. It raises valid points, especially on whether the bar has been lowered or not, and the selection committee's now just choosing "good" players over truly "great" ones.
But, based on the fact that they really are down to just choosing "good" players, a major issue with the people selected was that they didn't fit the traditional criteria of "good." Actually, they didn't fit the criteria of "male hockey players." Are hockey fans used to seeing, or expect to see, the greatest NHL players inducted? Does it throw us for a loop when you have "builders" or broadcasters or refs thrown in there, taking up space that "should be reserved" for players themselves? A lot of people had an issue with Cammi Granato and Angela James being inducted, which opened a whooooole new can of worms. Is it sexist to think that male NHL players who are just good need to be inducted over women who revolutionized the sport?
Personally, I believe that the HHOF could solve this problem by inducting a certain number of individuals per category - maybe 3 NHLers, 2 broadcasters, 2 builders, a ref if at all necessary (which I don't think it is, but whatever), and then 2 women if necessary as well. Why is there an overlap between all of the categories - why do they all count towards the number of people inducted a year? If the Hall is going to embrace the parity that the league has, why not go all out? What say you - re-vamp the number of inductees? Not induct some groups of people at all? And is it ok to suggest that Oates make it in over Smith?