savoybg

Mr. Roman.

How about starting the next round of hall of fame artists?

I know about your agreement with JGM, but why not get the 50s and 60s started.
It would probably be easier than doing all 3 groups at once anyway. I'd like to
see how the next round of 50s artists is going to shape up.

Here are last year's nominees who did not get voted in, along with their point
totals from the election. The last inductee was Ruth Brown who had one more
point (176) than the Spaniels.

The Spaniels - 175
Huey "Piano" Smith & Clowns - 173
The "5" Royales - 172
The Five Keys - 168
LaVern Baker - 160
The Orioles - 128
Jimmy Reed - 124
Lloyd Price - 122
The Cadillacs - 118
Smiley Lewis - 106
Dean Martin - 66

MY LISTS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg/myhomepage/index.html
SURVEYS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg1/myhomepage/index.html

bob roman

All right. But there are still some issues to settle.

When we discussed this last month there was a group consensus that we
should reduce the number of inductees per year. There was also a
growing opinion that we should work toward a percentage-of-ballots
system, rather than a set number of inductees per year. But we did
not know what that percentage should be.

I propose we have a transistion year. We follow the old process,
except 1) we eliminate ranking and 2) we induct only five nominees at
the end of the process. The percent of ballots that distinguishes the
5th most popular choice from the 6th most popular choice will give us
a guideline for the future.

Any disagreement?

Bob Roman

savoybg

Yes.

How about instead of locking us in with 5 inductees, that we do as you say,
make this a transition year, but let's look at the results of the voting first
before we decide that 5 should get in.

Suppose we have 4 artists who get over 60% of the vote, and the 5th artist only
gets 35% of the vote. Why should be have to put that 5th artist in?

Suppose we have 6 artists that all get over 55% of the vote, with the last 3
artists all getting between 55 and 63 % of the vote. Why shouldn't that 6
artist get in?

You see what I'm getting at. If you want to use the year to try and establish
the proper percentage, I think that's a good idea, but I don't think we should
set a minimum or a maximum number of inductees.

Let's take nominations (maximum of ten per voter). Then you can assertain the
proper cutoff on the nominations, let's just say it would be any artist with at
least 3 nominations, and we end up with 17 artists nominated.

Now you let each voter vote for up to 10 of the nominees (no ranking). After
the final vote you look at the percentages and see what seems fair.

I would say that we should be looking at somewhere between a majority (over
50%) and 2/3 (66.7 %) as the percentage needed for induction.

I would even be in favor of setting a percentage before the vote before I would
be in favor of agreeing to a mandatory induction of 5 artists.

You could also check the past voting to get an idea of the percentages.

If you have the info, how about posting last year's final vote, minus the
ranking and the point system.

Just give us all of the nominees, tell us how many total balloted were cast,
and how many mentions each artist got (along with the percentage of the vote).

This could help us to have an idea of what we need to do.

Unlike baseball, which is much less subjective, it will be harder to get a high
percentage of people to agree on inductees here, especially since we aren't
going to have any new names in the future who will be automatics, like Cal
Ripken and Roger Clemens.


MY LISTS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg/myhomepage/index.html
SURVEYS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg1/myhomepage/index.html