I put this up on the mothership, but haven't gotten any feedback, which I take to mean I'm absolutely right.

But just for confirmation purposes, I thought I'd toss it up here as well and let y'all poke sticks at it, as y'all do so very well. And yes, for someone who doesn't care a whit about the HoF, I spend way too much time writing about the HoF. But I do it because I WANT to care and, as a baseball fan, I SHOULD care about the HoF. But I find it hard to believe in the legitimacy of the HoF when the voting system seems to have been devised by some totalitarian madman, a Kim Jong Il, not to elect the best candidate possible but to remind everyone who still wields the power. I find it hard to believe in a system that can't get itself together and make a decision in time for a 70-year-old man to see himself go into the Hall before he's freaking DEAD. And that pisses me off.

Anyhoo, have at it:

HOW BUCDADDY FIXES THE HOF VOTE:

1. Institute some kind of national voting system that allows players and coaches, ex-players and coaches, broadcasters and (what an idea!) fans to be involved in formulating a list of 12 finalists eligible for a vote. There’s really no reason for the likes of Duane Kuiper to appear on an HoF ballot. Cut that shit out.

2. Since the BBWAA will certainly be loath to give up the power it wields, no matter how ethically unsound it may be for the members to vote on lucrative awards such as the HoF, MVP and Cy Young, let the BBWAA retain the final say.

3. Announce the list of 12 eligible players in December, in a TV extravangaza in the dead of winter when there’s no other baseball talk, so it can interrupt the nonstop onslaught of football and basketball.

4. Line up the eligible players, one per month: January, Barry Bonds. February, Mike Piazza. March, Roger Clemens …

5. Spark a nationwide monthlong discussion of Barry Bonds’ merits and demerits as a candidate. On the fourth Sunday of the month, stage a two-hour TV show (can’t imagine ESPN wouldn’t jump on this), the first hour a career retrospective, the next half hour a debate or an interview with the candidate or something.

6. In the last half hour, tally the votes live, with the candidate watching and commenting while the names of the voters and their votes are displayed. That's my favorite part.

7. One vote: In or out. If you’re in, you go in the Hall. If you’re out, you stay out for a minimum of five years, at which time you can be considered again only if you survive the original process to get on the list of 12 finalists.

8. Next month: Mike Piazza. Repeat.

Because it’s also beyond stupid that because the pool of possible votes is finite, players who have little or nothing to do with each others’ candidacies for the Hall are forced to compete with each other for votes. Why should a vote for Barry Bonds take away a vote for someone else? Why can’t Someone Else be judged on his own merits? What does Piazza's candidacy have to do with Schilling's, or Schilling's with Bonds'? As an alternative to the terrific system I've advocated here, how about letting the voters vote for as many players as they feel are Hall worthy, and then tote up the votes INDIVIDUALLY? Then every player who gets 75 percent of his own vote, rather than 75 percent of the pool for the total overall vote, gets in?

Discuss.