The NFL world was sent into a tizzy on Tuesday, when ESPN broke the story that Bill Belichick — owner of eight Super Bowl rings (six as a head coach), 333 career wins and a strong claim to the title of greatest coach of all time — had somehow fallen short of enshrinement in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility.
It was an inexplicable outcome on its face. So, immediately, people demanded explanation — and someone to blame. It was the typically petty-minded media run amok, punishing Belichick for his terseness in front of a microphone; it was former coaches and executives with an axe to grind, using the Spygate and Deflategate scandals to launder their sour grapes.
Or, maybe, it was none of the above. At least one voter who declined to check the box for Belichick has bravely come forward, and it turns out this wasn't nearly as scandalous as it first seemed. In fact, it's a tale as old as time, a sclerotic institution whose resistance to change keeps creating avoidable controversies.
Blil Belichick's snub wasn't about Spygate, 'politics' or anything else
In a story published Wednesday, Kansas City Star columnist Vahe Gregorian — a Pro Football Hall of Fame voter since 2021 — admitted publicly that he hadn't given Belichick his vote. But it wasn't because he thought the coach wasn't deserving, or because he wanted to teach him some sort of lesson. On the contrary, Gregorian is nothing but complimentary of Belichick, starting off by saying "it’s hard to imagine a more accomplished candidate" and "it can reasonably be wondered what the meaning of a Hall of Fame that doesn’t ultimately elect him is".
So, what gives? Gregorian explains his decision by pointing to choice he was presented with on the ballot. In addition to Belichick, four candidates were up for consideration: Patriots owner Robert Kraft, former Steel Curtain defensive end L.C. Greenwood, former 49ers running back Roger Craig and former Bengals quarterback Ken Anderson. Voters were only allowed to select three of those five for induction, forcing Gregorian and others to choose between snubbing Belichick or snubbing at least one other candidate they found to be deserving.
And unlike Belichick, who will certainly emerge as the finalist from the coaches category again next time around, senior players may never get another chance on the ballot: Some 60 All-Decade selections remain in the pool, with more competition added every year. "In the last two years, under the new system fused together with the coach and contributor candidates, only three of the six senior nominees have made it through to the Hall," Gregorian writes. "None of the three who were stopped short ... resurfaced on the next year’s ballot."
Suddenly, the decision to deny Belichick a vote looks less like vindictiveness or ignorance and more like a protest vote against a deeply flawed format that should've been changed a long time ago.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame is in serious need of an overhaul
It's worth noting here that all three of Greenwood, Craig and Anderson are Hall of Famers under any reaosnable definition of the term. Greenwood and Craig were All-Decade selections in the 70s and 80s, respectively, while Anderson won MVP honors in 1981 and was one of the three to five best players at his position for a full decade. They all deserves to be in, and yet the reality of the current process is that all of them might never get another chance if they don't earn induction this year.
So what are voters like Gregorian supposed to do? Hold their nose and use a spot on Belichick anyway, despite the fact that he's guaranteed to be elected sooner or later? Or spurn arguably the greatest coach ever in a possibly futile attempt to help stop the flow of past legends who have been relegated to the dustbin of history by Canton's backwards process?
Of course, Gregorian's is not a victimless crime. Belichick hanging around for another year means that others in the coaches category, like Tom Coughlin and Mike Shanahan, will have to bide their time behind him. But again, that's the Hall's fault, not the voters'. They could very easily come up with a different solution, one that deemphasizes the egos of those already in Canton and instead prioritizes letting voters advocate for every player they believe is worthy.