CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

The brush is broad and the steroid users pretty much sealed the deal on everyone. I get that. Not sure I agree with it. Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza and Curt Schilling certainly should be in, given the criteria of the past. I am good with the steroid guys not getting in, they cheated. The Pete Rose controversy will hang on forever; the difference is he did nothing to change the outcome of the games; still he broke a cardinal rule, don't bet on your own team, even if it is for them.

Well, I think it is sad, that it has all come to this.

I think Bonds, Clemmons, and Sosa for sure should sit beside Pete in the line for guys who would like to go to the hall. I think if a guys career folowed the typical hills and valleys we should assume no steriods and vote accordingly. I am one who believes Pete should be in the hall because of his on field accomplishments. I also think he should never be allowed to work in baseball again because of his off field behavior.

I agree. I would keep the steroid guys out forever...I would strike their records from the books...no asterisks....A lot of bad off field behavior in the Hall of Fame....but nothing indicates Rose should not be there...ban from working in baseball..absolutely....without knowing the facts and just what I follow...so not trying to judge...his repentance seemingly has been very self serving.

Oh, Pete has no remorse. Pete was a great ball player. His attitude between the white lines was perfect. Outside the lines Pete is a very selfish self serving person. He has always been that way.

I think it has something to do with the "first-ballot" stigma. The voters must not have thought of them as elite enough to be first-ballot guys. I personally don't care about that. If the guy is a hall of famer, he's a hall of famer and vote accordingly. I think Biggio, Piazza, and Schilling should get in. I have a suspicion that Piazza may have taken steroids once upon a time, but it's a hunch. Larry Walker and Jeff Bagwell are also guys with no direct evidence that I would bet dollars to donuts were on something.

I will never understand how a person's second career, which has absolutely 0 effect on his first career, should at all shape the way the former is remembered.

*A guy went home on Friday after 70 hours of work in a plant. The guy then decided he deserved a night on the town, took his uniform off, showered and redressed, then headed into town and got his drink on. Later that night, while leaving the pub he hit a truck owned by his company and then he left the scene and returned home without reporting it.

-Now, when this is discovered...what will he be charged with, what will it cost him? Long story short, what will it not cost him? The pay due him for the 70hrs of work performed that week...that penalty would never be assessed!