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.
