Originally Posted by RedsManRick
I do wonder though, is the reason nobody cares about the NBA or NFL Hall of Fame precisely because of the lack of public debate. By and large, all the deserving people get in and those that don't, don't. Could making the election process more rational actually lessen interest in the institution?
I think part of it is that with the NFL particularly, numbers do not tell the whole story where as in baseball, stats are king. A .300 hitter is considered a top hitter in 1900 as it is today. A 1000 yard rusher isn't the same in the 1950's vs. today, at least when it comes to impact. The numbers are just harder to quantify and it's probably why you don't get the kind of passionate debate in the NFL as you do in the MLB. Because numbers are king in baseball, I still think there will be interest in baseball.
Plus, determining positions like offensive linemen are not only difficult because there's not stats behind it but it's not really a "sexy" debate so to speak. Every position in baseball has a stat to it in which you can determine if that player was dominant or not. That isn't the same in the NFL.
I don't watch the NBA so I can't give you an answer on that.
EDIT: On a whole, I would rather have less public interest in the MLB HOF if that means voters get it right rather than the BS we have going on now. I'll sacrifice popularity if it saves what little sanity I have left, lol.