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.
The number of known Hall of Fame voters who did not vote for Bill Belichick has doubled. From one to two.
Mike Chappell of Fox59.com, who has the Indianapolis vote on the 50-person panel, has joined Vahe Gregorian of the Kansas City Star in disclosing that he did not vote for Belichick. Unlike Gregorian, Chappell voted for Patriots owner Robert Kraft.
Under the current rules, Belichick, Kraft, and three senior candidates (Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, L.C. Greenwood) were in the same five-person bucket. Each voter listed three of them on their ballots.
Chappell included Kraft but not Belichick. Chappell cited Kraft’s “role in building the Patriots dynasty beginning in 1994 AND his undeniable role in helping negotiate the end of the 100-play-day work stoppage in 2011 — while his wife was gravely ill — that has resulted in long-standing labor peace.” Chappell also pointed out that Kraft has “also been involved behind the scenes in bolstering the NFL’s ever-increasing TV revenue.”
As to Belichick, Chappell cited Spygate. He also said #Deflategate was mentioned during the discussion. (That’s a new wrinkle.)
“There’s no erasing the stain of Spygate from his bio,” Chappell wrote. “This wasn’t alleged behavior. The NFL fined Belichick $500,000 — the maximum allowed — along with docking the Patriots $250,000 and a first-round draft pick for illegally videotaping New York Jets signals in 2007.”
Chappell also said he’s not in favor of grouping senior players with coaches and contributors. Chappell voted for two players and Kraft.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that Kraft and Belichick pulled votes from each other,” Chappell wrote.
Chappell expressed confidence that Belichick will make it next year, admitting that his failure to vote “in no way insinuates Belichick isn’t Hall-of-Fame-worthy. (Chappel is right; it doesn’t “insinuate” it. His failure to give Belichick a Hall of Fame vote expressly says it.)
Chappell also dubbed as “asinine” the theory that Belichick’s attitude toward reporters was a factor. But Chappell can’t know what prompted some to entertain Spygate as an impediment. For one or more voters, Spygate may have been a pretext for the conscious or subconscious bias regarding a coach who was, at times, a gratuitous jerk to reporters (and, at times, still is).
The real problem here is the shift away from straight up-or-down voting for each finalist. The sooner the Hall of Fame gets back to that, the sooner situations like this won’t arise in the future.
And, frankly, all 50 voters should refuse to participate in the voting process unless that happens. The current approach creates unintended results, and it makes all of the voters look bad — even the ones who voted for Belichick.
The Bill Belichick snub has had plenty of ripple effects. The biggest came from the alleged role of Hall of Fame G.M. and Hall of Fame voter Bill Polian in persuading other voters to pass on enshrining Belichick.
It started in the ESPN.com story regarding Belichick’s omission. From the report: “A voter who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Polian, an ardent [Robert] Kraft supporter and former general manager of the Buffalo Bills and Indianapolis Colts -- a chief Patriots rival during their dynasty -- told some voters he believed Belichick should ‘wait a year’ before induction as penance for Spygate.”
Polian initially said to SI.com, “That’s totally and categorically untrue. I voted for [Belichick].” Polian then told ESPN.com that he can’t recall with 100-percent certainty whether he voted for Belichick. On Wednesday, Polian confirmed that he did in fact vote for Belichick.
None of this has kept Polian from being accused of instigating Belichick’s failure to qualify. Based on the explanation from Vahe Gregorian of the Kansas City Star regarding his decision not to vote for Belichick, it’s entirely possible that more than a few voters omitted Belichick from their ballots in favor of former players Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, and L.C. Greenwood, reasoning that Belichick will get in eventually and that the players may never make it.
Regardless, the prevailing view, as explained by Belichick’s presenter, Armando Salguero, is that Spygate derailed Belichick’s candidacy.
John Carroll University football coach Brian Polian, Bill’s son, has weighed in on the situation.
“My father is a public figure and polarizing,” Brian Polian said on Twitter. “I understand and accept that. However, what has happened over the last couple of days is not right. The facts and the truth are important.”
Whatever the reasoning for the 11 (or more) who failed to include Belichick as one of three selections from a group that included Anderson, Craig, Greenwood, and Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Belichick didn’t get enough votes. It’s a product of the process, one that (for whatever reason) no longer requires an up-or-down vote on each of the finalists.
No one voted “against” Belichick. Not enough voted “for” him. Next year, the Hall of Fame will surely fix this.
The broader question is whether the Hall of Fame will overhaul its voting procedures in order to restore the bar to where it used to be. If not, the annual classes will shrink, the logjam will grow, and more worthy candidates (relative to those already enshrined) will be overlooked.
On Wednesday, the Pro Football Hall of Fame warned its 50-person panel of unpaid, volunteer voters that they could lose their unpaid, voluntary jobs if they dare to violate the all-important “bylaws” — which apparently are carved onto stone tablets. The statement did not specify any specific behavior that prompted the warning.
The ominous statement from the Hall of Fame made me curious about the bylaws. So I went looking for them.
The bylaws aren’t posted on the Hall of Fame’s website. I managed to obtain the relevant language, even if the person(s) who made them available may have been risking their unpaid, voluntary Hall of Fame duties by sharing it.
Article 7 sets forth several grounds for removing a selector. The relevant sentence is this: “Conduct unbecoming to the integrity of the procedure for the election of persons to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. (See Section D.)”
Here’s Section D (“Selectors Code of Conduct”) in its entirety:
“In order to facilitate and maintain the integrity of the selection process, each Selector shall avoid engaging in commentary or conduct outside the annual selection meeting that might reasonably be construed as compromising the Selector’s willingness to consider the opinions of other Selectors as to the merits of any candidate for election. Each Selector shall attend the annual selection meeting with an open mind in order to consider each candidate fairly on his/ her own merit. Each Selector or alternate Selector shall:
“1. Assist timely in the voting for the final preliminary lists.
“2. Notify the President promptly if unable to participate in the final selection process.
“3. Hold in strictest confidence all opinions expressed by Selectors during the annual selection meeting regarding the qualifications of the nominees.
“4. Safeguard all information on an embargoed basis until the Hall’s designated public release date/time.
“5. Refrain from any pre-meeting collusion that attempts to secure votes for a candidate or candidates in a quid pro quo manner.
“6. Serve as a presenter for a candidate only if the selector intends to advocate for that candidate. If he/she will not advocate for a candidate, he/she should not serve as the presenter.
“7. Failure to comply with the Selectors Code of Conduct could result in removal from the Selection Committee.”
There’s nothing in the Selectors Code of Conduct that prohibits voters from disclosing their votes publicly, which multiple voters have done in the aftermath of the Bill Belichick snub. So that can’t be the motivation for the Hall of Fame’s Wednesday statement.
Given that there’s no reason to believe any of the voters leaked to ESPN.com the fact that Belichick didn’t make it (as explained yesterday, it appears Belichick violated his NDA with the Hall of Fame by disclosing his omission from the 2026 class to multiple people), the Hall of Fame’s concern would seem to relate to paragraph 3 — “Hold in strictest confidence all opinions expressed by Selectors during the annual selection meeting regarding the qualifications of the nominees.”
Armando Salguero, who presented Belichick to the 50-person panel, appeared on Wednesday’s edition of The Dan Patrick Show. And Salguero disclosed “opinions expressed by Selectors during the selection meeting” regarding Belichick’s qualifications.
“In that discussion-slash-debate, there was definitely signs that this was gonna be somewhat of an uphill battle,” Salguero told Patrick. “There was one voter who said outright, ‘I’m not voting for him, and because of Spygate.’ And, you know, he gets his opinion, and there was others who brought up the one-year thing, just the fact that he might come back and be a coach again in the NFL after being selected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. That is not an issue for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And that was said in the meeting. So I assumed that that was not the thing. I think that Spygate was the factor that we’re sitting here today. It’s the reason that Bill Belichick is not a first ballot Hall of Famer.”
That seems to be an example of the kind of thing that prompted the Hall of Fame to speak out. Still, why issue a public statement? Email the 50 voters, reminding them of their obligations and quoting the relevant portion of the bylaws.
The Hall of Fame’s approach served only to create confusion. No one knew what the voters had supposedly done. Some actually interpreted it to mean the Hall of Fame was considering stripping voting privilege from those who failed to vote Belichick.
Some thought, upon seeing the Hall of Fame had issued a statement, that the end result would be an announcement that Belichick would indeed be enshrined, voting process be damned.
The broader issue is the Hall of Fame’s obsession with secrecy. Everything about the process should be transparent. Votes should be disclosed. The selection meeting should be live-streamed. It should be a fair and open process. If someone is going to make the case that Spygate disqualifies (or delays) Belichick’s enshrinement, that person should be willing to say it out loud, in a public forum. And the discussions shouldn’t be treated as a papal conclave.
Extreme confidentiality invites speculation as to potential impropriety. In this case, the outcome proves it. Belichick should have gotten in. The Hall of Fame shouldn’t try to silence those who want to help the many confused media members and fans understand why that happened.
And those who currently hold the unpaid, volunteer positions as Hall of Fame voters should give serious consideration as to whether what they get (nothing) is worth what they give — especially when a flawed process that led to a bizarre result has forced all of them to waste even more time this week on an assignment that should have been over and done with until next year.
Everyone believes Bill Belichick shouldn’t have been snubbed in his first attempt to enter the Hall of Fame.
Including the President of the United States.
Donald Trump chimed in on the issue earlier today, somehow linking the decision to the revised kickoff rule.
“It is the same mindset that gave pro football the new and unwatchable ‘Sissy’ Kickoff Rule, that made it impossible for Bill Belichick to not be elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame,” Trump said on social media. “Both are ridiculous and should be overturned!”
Somewhat surprisingly, he didn’t thank us for our attention to this matter.
The two issues have no connection. The NFL changed the kickoff rule to revive a dead play. Previously, there were hardly any kick returns. Now, there are plenty. Trump, for whatever reason, doesn’t like how it now looks.
The NFL has no direct role in the snubbing of Belichick. That happened due to the combination of a ill-advised voting process and the failure of at least 40 of the 50 voters to do the right thing and vote for Belichick.
Neither will change, any time soon. Belichick likely will get his Hall of Fame enshrinement in a year. The new kickoff rule is here to stay.
At least 11 members of the 50-person panel of Hall of Fame voters did not include Bill Belichick on a convoluted ballot that required the selection of three of five finalists who were not modern-era players.
At least one of the voters has affirmatively disclosed that he did not include Belichick’s name on his ballot, with an explanation for the decision to pick others instead.
Vahe Gregorian of the Kansas City Star, the Kansas City representative to the panel, has posted an article addressing his reasoning.
Gregorian has explained that, if the process entailed (as it did not very long ago) a simple up-or-down vote for Belichick, Gregorian would have voted for the six-time Super Bowl winner. Because, however, the current process required Gregorian (and the other voters) to narrow the selections to three from a list that included Belichick, Robert Kraft, Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, and L.C. Greenwood, Gregorian omitted Belichick. And Kraft.
Gregorian voted for Anderson, Craig, and Greenwood, the three finalists nominated by the seniors committee.
“As the presentations and discussions proceeded, I found myself wanting to vote for all five — including Steelers great Greenwood, a four-time Super Bowl champ who was All-Decade in the 1970s, and Bengals quarterback Anderson, the 1981 MVP who led the league in passer rating four times,” Gregorian wrote. “All three have been long deserving of induction in the Hall. All three have been, well, snubbed for decades.”
And so Gregorian chose to vote for the three senior candidates, because he viewed it as their last chance to get in.
“I felt duty-bound to vote for the richly deserving seniors, who most likely won’t ever have a hearing again as more senior candidates enter the pool and fresh cases get made for others,” Gregorian wrote. “Meanwhile, Belichick is inevitable soon . . . as he should be. At the risk of contradicting my own vote, really, he shouldn’t even have to wait.”
Gregorian’s explanation highlights the illogical nature of the current process, which has scrapped the up-or-down vote on each finalist for a competition among the five, vying for three votes from at least 40 of the voters.
It shouldn’t be that way. And that’s on whoever at the Hall of Fame had the bright idea to change the rules. Thus, while those who chose not to make Belichick one of their three choices will take the heat, the real culprit(s) is/are the person(s) who thought it made sense to dramatically alter the process, stripping each finalist of a simple, clear, yes-or-no vote.
If nothing else, here’s hoping that ill-advised tweak is revised for 2027. And here’s hoping the others who didn’t vote for Belichick disclose their decision, and the reasoning for it.
The Bill Belichick snub led to another compelling storyline regarding the role of Hall of Fame G.M. Bill Polian in the outcome. A day later, an important point of clarification has emerged.
Polian, after saying he voted for Belichick before saying he can’t say with 100 percent certainty whether he did, says he did indeed vote for his former New England nemesis.
“I voted for coach Belichick in the Hall of Fame selection meeting,” Polian said in an appearance on SiriusXM NFL Radio, after explaining he was reading from a prepared statement. “The Pro Football Hall of Fame has confirmed that fact through the auditors of the selection process. Again, I’ll state that I never said that I believe that Coach Belichick should quote, wait a year, close quote, for enshrinement. This has been confirmed by the Pro Football Hall of Fame, numerous selectors who were in the room, and my vote for coach Belichick. As a Hall of Fame member and selector, I realize the import of what we do. I’ve always tried as a selector to make these difficult choices with the utmost of objectivity. I’ve said on SiriusXM Radio and numerous other media outlets that I believe Coach Belichick to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, my vote confirms that.”
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. Not enough of the voters voted for Belichick. At least 11 of 50 failed to include Belichick among three selections from a group that included Belichick, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, and seniors candidates Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, and L.C. Greenwood.
From those five choices, who would be your three? And is there any way Belichick wouldn’t be one of them?
The Pro Football Hall of Fame took a multi-level P.R. hit on Tuesday, with the leak that former Browns and Patriots coach Bill Belichick did not qualify for the 2026 enshrinement class and the ensuing firestorm of criticism. On Wednesday, the Hall of Fame hit back, with a vague and non-subtle threat that members of the selection committee could lose their privileges.
Here’s the full statement:
“The Pro Football Hall of Fame understands and respects the passionate reaction of many fans, media members and enshrinees of the Hall itself in light of published reports regarding the voting results for the Class of 2026.
“It’s that very passion that propels the game. The Hall also respects the members of the Selection Committee when they follow the selection process bylaws. It is an honor to serve as a selector.
“Each year, the Hall reviews the selection process and the composition of the 50-person Selection Committee. If it is determined that any member(s) violated the selection process bylaws, they understand action will be taken.
“That could include the possibility that such selector(s) would not remain a member of the committee moving forward.
“The selection of a new class is the most important duty the Hall of Fame oversees each year, and the integrity of that process cannot be in question.”
It’s unclear which bylaws may have been violated. Largely because the bylaws aren’t available for public consumption.
The entire debate traces to the fact that Belichick spoke to others about the fact that he was excluded from the incoming class. Belichick was supposed to say nothing to anyone, once he was informed that he didn’t make it. Others, apparently voters, thereafter spoke off the record to ESPN.com about the deliberations. And multiple voters have revealed their votes publicly, more than a week before the announcement of the incoming class.
Whatever bylaws were or weren’t violated, the Hall of Fame should treat lightly. The 50 voters work for free. They devote many hours and years of accumulated expertise to the process, and they get nothing in return. The voters (at least the ones with, you know, jobs that entail actively covering the NFL on a daily basis) don’t need the hassle.
It’s a strange flex for the Hall of Fame to huff and puff about a problem that was created not by the voters, but by a spurned finalist who didn’t honor the commitment to keep his mouth shut. If the Hall of Fame has a problem with what has happened, they should take it up with Bill Belichick.
Many have addressed the failure of the Hall of Fame selection committee to induct Bill Belichick on his first year of eligibility for enshrinement. One voice that tends to stand out belongs to Belichick’s long-time, six-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback, Tom Brady.
Appearing on Seattle Sports 710 AM with Brock & Salk, Brady was asked how he reacted when he heard that Belichick didn’t make it.
“You know, it’s — I just think that to me it’s — I don’t understand it,” Brady said. “I mean, I was with him every day. If he’s not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, there’s really no coach that should ever be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, which is completely ridiculous, because people deserve it, and he’s incredible. There’s no coach I’d ever want to play — I’d rather play for. If I’m taking one coach to go out there to win a Super Bowl, give me one season, I’m taking Bill Belichick. So that’s enough said.
“There’s nothing . . . outside of that, again, when it comes down to votes and popularity and all that . . . then welcome to the world of voting, and we may as well go try out for the Oscars or whatever, and get a big panel to tell you if you’re good or not. So, it’s the way it works. And unfortunately — he’s gonna get into the Hall of Fame. In the end, I’m not worried about that. And a lot of times in life, for all of us, things don’t happen exactly how you want them on your timeline, but we’ll all be there to celebrate him when it does happen. And he’s gonna have a huge turnout from so many players, coaches that appreciated everything that he did and the commitment that he made to winning, and the impact that he had on all our lives, and that’ll be a great celebration when it happens.”
While we cleaned up the words to make it more readable (dropping the various uses of “you know,” for instance), listen to the raw audio. Brady stammered through his first few words as he seemingly gathered thoughts he shouldn’t have had to gather, like he did when addressing the Shedeur Sanders draft-day free fall.
So why was Brady being careful? Here’s a theory: He knew he needed to vouch for Belichick’s first-ballot candidacy. If, however, Brady had spoken too glowingly about Belichick, he would have walked into what would have become an obvious follow-up question.
Why didn’t you hire him as the Raiders coach last year, and why aren’t you considering him this year?
He still said enough to invite that curiosity. If, as he said, “There’s no coach I’d ever want to play — I’d rather play for. If I’m taking one coach to go out there to win a Super Bowl, give me one season, I’m taking Bill Belichick.”
Great. Fine. So why aren’t you talking to him now?
That’s not to say he should be. But it’s a more than fair question, given his current role as “close collaborator” with Raiders G.M. John Spytek. Why isn’t he on a list of candidates that includes far less accomplished coaches now, and why wasn’t he hired instead of Pete Carroll a year ago?
Patriots owner Robert Kraft has weighed in on former Patriots head coach Bill Belichick falling short of election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility.
Kraft and Belichick joined three seniors candidates — Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, and L.C. Greenwood — on a ballot that called for members of the selection committee to vote for three of the five names. Candidates must receive 80 percent of that vote in order to be elected and Belichick failed to reach that number.
That has led to widespread criticism of both the process and the choices made by members of the selection committee. On Wednesday, Kraft issued a statement siding with those who find it hard to believe that the coach who led the Patriots to six Super Bowl titles was not voted into the Hall.
“Whatever perceptions may exist about any personal differences between Bill and me, I strongly believe Bill Belichick’s record and body of work speak for themselves,” Kraft said in a statement to the Associated Press. “As head coach of the New England Patriots for more than two decades, he set the standard for on-field excellence, preparation, and sustained success in the free agency and salary cap era of the National Football League. He is the greatest coach of all time and he unequivocally deserves to be a unanimous first-ballot Pro Football Hall of Famer.”
The perceived animosity that Kraft referenced in his statement made the prospect of the two men being inducted at the same time an intriguing one, but this summer’s ceremony in Canton could wind up taking place without either one of them having a reason to be in attendance.
