Paul Tagliabue: anything other arguments in his favor?

[Shrevedude]

When I first heard Paul Tagliabue's name brought up for the finalist of the contributor category a couple of years ago, my first thoughts were that I agreed with the assertion. Through Paul's entire tenure in office, he did not have a strike season.. Something that Pete Rozelle, who was a sure fire contributor Hall of Famer, couldn't do. However, Goodell has accomplished the same feat so far. Upon hearing the first Talk of Fame broadcast on the internet radio, I ended up changing my mind. There were many good points that were said were talked about by the voters against Paul that I did not think about. Those include...

- The fact that both Los Angeles teams, the second biggest TV Market in the US, lost their teams to relocation, and it was long past Paul's tenure that football returned to Los Angeles under Goodell. Also, it should be pointed out that three California teams, the Los Angeles markets and San Diego, all had poor stadiums, if my memory of the case was correct. And it should also be pointed out that recently, the Raiders and Chargers have both relocated from their respective cities, obviously with the damage from Paul's tenure finally taking its toll.

The 2006 and 2007 owner's agreement, which owners opted out of, something I may need somebody to explain further to me in a simplistic manner, since that part of business goes over my head, was Paul's doing. I know it also set the stage for the 2011 lockout.

Paul also gets criticism for the 1994 expansion... and not being able to come to terms with giving the two favorites, St Louis and Baltimore, obviously the most well known football cities, their team at the time.

Lastly, and I feel this is by far his worst deed... Paul failed to see that concussions were becoming a serious issue, an issue that has seriously hurt many players after their career. Much worse, Paul started a commission , called the, undermining sounding, the " mild brain injury Commission", which was headed by a neurologist Paul commissioned that happened to be a close friend that his.

I feel like I'm being quite harsh on Paul, and I kind of feel bad about that...

However, I would like to hear some of your arguments for Paul being in the Hall of Fame other than the fact that he avoided the strike-shortened season. Maybe some of you will also have more arguments against him.

However, whether or not he gets in... I don't feel Paul is Hall of Fame material... At least until a much better arguments on several levels can be made.

[Bryan]

He's not Roger Goodell. I think that would be the strongest argument for Tags. Kind of like how Peter Ueberroth's baseball HOF resume is essentially one item...he wasn't Bowie Kuhn.

[Rupert Patrick]

Paul also gets criticism for the 1994 expansion... and not being able to come to terms with giving the two favorites, St Louis and Baltimore, obviously the most well known football cities, their team at the time.

I don't believe that either city were the favorites going into the expansion meetings in October, 1993, as both cities had failed to hold onto NFL franchises over the previous ten years. Of the five NFL expansion candidates - Baltimore, Carolina, Jacksonville, Memphis and St. Louis - Carolina was pretty much the one sure thing going in, as the greater Charlotte area was one of the largest population centers not already covered by the NFL, and they also had a former NFL player (Jerry Richardson) ready to own the team lock, stock and barrel. Tennessee was also a large market that was ripe for the NFL, as was the Jacksonville area. Even though St. Louis had Walter Payton as the face of the franchise, I just didn't feel they (or Baltimore) would get a replacement team in front of Charlotte, Jacksonville or Memphis. As it wound up, Baltimore and St. Louis wound up getting other cities teams.

[Shrevedude]

Paul also gets criticism for the 1994 expansion... and not being able to come to terms with giving the two favorites, St Louis and Baltimore, obviously the most well known football cities, their team at the time.

I don't believe that either city were the favorites going into the expansion meetings in October, 1993, as both cities had failed to hold onto NFL franchises over the previous ten years. Of the five NFL expansion candidates - Baltimore, Carolina, Jacksonville, Memphis and St. Louis - Carolina was pretty much the one sure thing going in, as the greater Charlotte area was one of the largest population centers not already covered by the NFL, and they also had a former NFL player (Jerry Richardson) ready to own the team lock, stock and barrel. Tennessee was also a large market that was ripe for the NFL, as was the Jacksonville area. Even though St. Louis had Walter Payton as the face of the franchise, I just didn't feel they (or Baltimore) would get a replacement team in front of Charlotte, Jacksonville or Memphis. As it wound up, Baltimore and St. Louis wound up getting other cities teams.

Now that I look more into this taking your comments into account...while I've gotten my claim from a few articles over the years of StL and Bal being the "two favorites", it sounds to me more like that was the assumption of those news outlets who saw the facts in a different way that was more of perception. While you definitely have a point, Rupert, about the other three cities being fresh NFL markets who never hosted an NFL franchise prior to 1994, this article I found from the NY Times state the NFL said there was NO favorite...that might be the closest to the truth.

Jacksonville beat out competing bids from Baltimore (with three groups), St. Louis and Memphis. St. Louis was believed to have been the favorite, although Baltimore seemed to make great strides when its third ownership group entered the picture two weeks ago. But league officials insisted all along that there was no favorite.

In Tagliabue's defense, It is sad when HOF voters bring up this kind of revisionist history in the HOF war room when discussing demerits toward someone.

[Rupert Patrick]

Paul also gets criticism for the 1994 expansion... and not being able to come to terms with giving the two favorites, St Louis and Baltimore, obviously the most well known football cities, their team at the time.

I don't believe that either city were the favorites going into the expansion meetings in October, 1993, as both cities had failed to hold onto NFL franchises over the previous ten years. Of the five NFL expansion candidates - Baltimore, Carolina, Jacksonville, Memphis and St. Louis - Carolina was pretty much the one sure thing going in, as the greater Charlotte area was one of the largest population centers not already covered by the NFL, and they also had a former NFL player (Jerry Richardson) ready to own the team lock, stock and barrel. Tennessee was also a large market that was ripe for the NFL, as was the Jacksonville area. Even though St. Louis had Walter Payton as the face of the franchise, I just didn't feel they (or Baltimore) would get a replacement team in front of Charlotte, Jacksonville or Memphis. As it wound up, Baltimore and St. Louis wound up getting other cities teams.

Now that I look more into this taking your comments into account...while I've gotten my claim from a few articles over the years of StL and Bal being the "two favorites", it sounds to me more like that was the assumption of those news outlets who saw the facts in a different way that was more of perception. While you definitely have a point, Rupert, about the other three cities being fresh NFL markets who never hosted an NFL franchise prior to 1994, this article I found from the NY Times state the NFL said there was NO favorite...that might be the closest to the truth.

Jacksonville beat out competing bids from Baltimore (with three groups), St. Louis and Memphis. St. Louis was believed to have been the favorite, although Baltimore seemed to make great strides when its third ownership group entered the picture two weeks ago. But league officials insisted all along that there was no favorite.

In Tagliabue's defense, It is sad when HOF voters bring up this kind of revisionist history in the HOF war room when discussing demerits toward someone.

When I mentioned that St. Louis had an NFL team in 1995 and Baltimore had an NFL team in 1996, I neglected to mention that Memphis had an NFL team (the former Oilers) in the Liberty Bowl in 1997 and 1998 before they moved to Nashville and became the Titans. It's not like these cities got screwed in the process, well, maybe Memphis did because they only got a team of their own for two seasons. St. Louis got a dose of their own medicine when the Rams moved there because St Louis ponied up a shiny new stadium to get them there, and they left because they wanted another shiny new stadium in St. Louis and the city was still in debt from the first shiny new stadium. As a result, St. Louis is now a two-time loser and they will probably never get another NFL team.

The problem with the next expansion, if the ever have another one, is that San Diego and Oakland will probably be at the top of the list because their teams abandoned them, instead of cities like San Antonio or Portland or Salt Lake City or Birmingham or Oklahoma City with a fresh fan base who would support a new team wholeheartedly.

[sheajets]

I still think if you give the NFL truth serum they probably regret putting a franchise in Jacksonville

I would've never tried St. Louis again. That's a baseball city and a surprisingly good hockey city but just not a football city. This was known in 1994. Why on earth would you drop the Rams there from Anaheim/LA? Especially in the dingy from the getgo Edward Jones Dome. I wonder what would've happened if they weren't spoiled by the greatest show on turf right away

I'm sort of iffy on the Chargers future in LA long term. Right now their situation is a complete and total joke which should've never been allowed to transpire. Playing in some communist kickball field in front of 20k people, 60-70% of which are rooting for the opposition. But once they get the new place built, LA may just take an indifferent (or spiteful) approach to them. If they don't play well as that stadiums 2nd class citizens (and believe me it ain't fun) their games will be ghost towns

LA will support the Rams. It's not a football mad city in general but the population is huge and it's better than St. Louis. The Chargers nobody has any use for there. They really have their work cut out for them endearing themselves to that city

[BD Sullivan]

He's not Roger Goodell. I think that would be the strongest argument for Tags. Kind of like how Peter Ueberroth's baseball HOF resume is essentially one item...he wasn't Bowie Kuhn.

Don't forget collusion.

When I saw the title of the thread, I immediately thought of the damning comments about how Tagliabue either ignored or fought attempts at dealing with concussions. etc.

Tagliabue may have also been the beneficiary of having someone in Gene Upshaw as his union rival, with the latter's critics saying their relationship was a bit too chummy.

Ironically, both St. Louis and Baltimore got franchises that got their start in Cleveland.