Wow.

According to an ESPN article, Don Van Natta Jr. and Seth Wickersham reported that eight-time Super Bowl Champion Bill Belichick was not selected for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2026.

Allegedly, Belichick was informed by a Hall representative last Friday that he was not chosen.  The 50 Hall of Fame voters met previously to present cases, debate, and cast a secret ballot, and many (including some of the Hall of Fame selectors) thought that Belichick was a lock.

His case was the most complete of any coach’s case this side of Vince Lombardi.  Belichick led the Pats to six Super Bowls and 31 playoff wins (records for a head coach, 301 regular season wins, and was lauded as a mastermind whose players bought into the “Patriot Way”.  He also owns two other Super Bowl rings as the New York Giants’ Defensive Coordinator.  Naturally, the news sent shockwaves throughout social media.

J.J. Watt: 

“I can’t be reading this right.  This has to be some knock-off Hall of Fame or something, it can’t be the actual NFL Hall of Fame.  There is not a single world whatsoever in which Bill Belichick not be a First Ballot Hall of Famer.”

Patrick Mahomes: 

“Insane… don’t even understand how this could be possible.”

Jimmy Johnson:

“What a shame.. jealous ignorant voters (a few that hide behind secret ballot) did not vote one of the greatest coaches of all time into HOF.”

Tom Brady:

“I don’t understand it.  I mean, I was with him every day.  If he’s not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, there’s really no coach that should ever be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, which is completely ridiculous.”

Julian Edelman:

“Smh.”

The news also shocked many of the Hall of Fame selectors.  In an unprecedented outburst, many of them openly stated (or strongly implied)that they voted for Belichick.  *This included Gary Myers, Tony Grossi, Mary Kay Cabot, Charean Williams, Mike Sando, Rich Cimini, Armando Salguero, Kent Somers, Dan Pompei, Paul Kuharsky, John McClain, Lindsay Jones, Vic Carucci, Jason Cole, Eric Williams, Jarrett Bell, Dave Birkett, Pete Douherty, Paul Domowitch, Gerry Dulac, Matt Maiocco, Calvin Watkins, Sal Paolntonio and Ira Kaufman.

To his credit, Vahe Gregorian openly said he did not and gave an articulate rationale for why.

The process seems broken.

So how is this possible?

1. Mathematics.

Two years ago, the Hall of Fame changed the process, which pooled the Seniors, Coaches, and Contributor Finalists.  The 50 selectors were tasked with voting for three of the five, who last year included Maxie Baughn, Ralph Hay, Mike Holmgren, Sterling Sharpe, and Jim Tyrer, and entrance to Canton was gained by obtaining 40 of the 50 votes, or, should no candidate make that threshold, the candidate with the highest amount would be selected. 

Very few people (including many of the selectors) gave the new rules much thought, but Chicago’s Sports Historian, Jack Silverstein, called it out, showing how mathematics would lead to the smallest class in years.  Quite simply, the math was going to math, and only Sharpe entered through this group; there was no reason to think it would be different this year.

Silverstein put together a group of historians (which included the owner of this site, along with actual past and present HOF selectors) to mimic the process, and sure enough, only one candidate met the 80%.  Ironically, that candidate was Belichick.

Going back to the actual selectors, it is possible that, with knowledge of last year’s results, some may have thought Belichick was entering for sure and cast their selections for others (namely, the Seniors) so that one of them might enter.  We can’t discount that some may feel Belichick is destined to be back on the ballot next year, and Anderson, Craig, and Greenwood might not.  The numbers were going to get more than one of these five legends, especially now that the three groups are competing with each other.

2. Spygate, etc.

“Every battle is won before it is fought.”  That quote is from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”, which was displayed prominently in Belichick’s locker room.  Perhaps that puts his role in Spygate into perspective?   Belichick was fined $500,000 for his role in the scandal, which is believed to have lasted seven years.  Throw in “Deflategate” and you have what some have called a tainted legacy.  “Belicheat” did trend yesterday!   Based on what selector, Armando Salguero said on the Dan Patrick Show today that one voter outright stated, “I’m not voting for him because of Spygate.”   How many others thought the same?

3. Bill Polian.

This could be the most logical one.  According to another ESPN article, Polian allegedly told voters that Belichick should have to “wait a year” because of Spygate, though hours later, he denied any involvement, stating “That’s totally and categorically untrue” and that he voted for Bill.  Strangely, a day later, he was only 95% sure that he voted for Belichick.

Perhaps Polian should just stop talking.

Regardless of whether he voted for Belichick, two things are sure:

Polian’s clubs have taken the worst of Belichick’s teams, and Polian has a lot of influence.

4. Role in the dynasty and declining legacy

This is just us spitballing, but is it possible that some voters see the Patriots' return to prominence without Belichick, Brady winning a Super Bowl without him, Belichick’s failure at UNC, and the mockery of his personal life, and that they respect him a little less?  If so, we have seen sillier reasons not vote for a candidate.

Regardless of why or if some of the selectors omitted Belichick, we will go on record and say this:

You got this one wrong, and based on what the Hall just put out, they know it, too.

*Ollie Connolly @OllieConnolly put together a list on X of those who voted yes and no.

Today, fans of soccer, basketball, cricket, and other sports are increasingly using convenient online information resources to follow many sporting events. After all, it is the online mode that allows you to be independent of television broadcasts and find out the results of competitions at any time, from anywhere in the world. Most of these platforms, including sportscore.com, are valued for their ability to provide quick access to up-to-date information, which can be used to understand how a tournament is progressing. 

The easiest way to stay connected to sports

This sports website contains the results of various competitions. All information is collected in one place and constantly updated, which is very important and convenient for users. Using the SportScore website, you can quickly and easily find the match you are looking for, as well as all the information about it in real time. None of the pages on this online platform are overloaded, and the well-structured interface makes it easy to navigate even for those who are visiting the service for the first time.

You can use the official website on a computer, laptop, tablet, or mobile device. Here, you can not only find out the results of your favorite sports team's games, but also follow the progress of tournaments in full. To do this, SportScore match info displays:

• Tournament tables;
• Statistics for top clubs and lesser-known teams;
• Results of completed rounds and the schedule of upcoming matches;
• Team and player ratings.

This page will be of interest to avid fans, casual fans, sports enthusiasts, or anyone interested in the results of team games.

Football at the center of the action

The main sport that this online information platform focuses on is football . If you are interested in the results of soccer matches, you can find them broken down by:

• National championships;
• International competitions;
• Competitions between national teams;
• Regional or minor league games.

With the help of the SportScore football page, you will always be up to date with the football agenda. Even if you have never used online sports resources before, trust us, the SportScore main page will make you come back here again and again. An intuitive interface for every user allows you to always have up-to-date information about sporting events online. The whole world of sport in one website. To dispel any doubts, visit the website and see for yourself!

Cricket match formats vary, and results often change during the course of the match. The field, weather, line-ups and game decisions all have an impact. It is not easy to keep all these factors in mind at the same time. It is much easier to believe the myths about the game and draw false conclusions based on them. The cricket betting guides on https://onlinecricketbettingguide.com/ will help you better understand the nuances.

Myths about Complete Control of the Result

Cricket is often perceived as a game where the outcome is easy to predict in advance. Fans see the tables, know the line-ups, and follow the players' form. Against this backdrop, the myth of complete control over the result is born. Many are convinced that it is enough to look at past matches and the outcome is already clear.

Cricket is based on long formats and a multitude of game details. A single match includes dozens of micro-episodes. Serves, choice of tactics, field conditions, weather, referees' decisions. Even experienced analysts only take some of the factors into account. There is simply no such thing as complete control here. Every over can change the course of the match.

People often talk about a strong team and a weak opponent. In cricket, such labels do not work well. A low-ranked team can start well, seize the initiative and keep up the pressure. One successful bowler can turn the match around in a short time. One unsuccessful spell by the favourite leads to a loss of points.

Another popular myth is related to home field advantage. It is believed that the hosts always feel more confident. In reality, cricket shows a different picture. Visiting teams often prepare more thoroughly. Players study the field in advance, adapt their serve and playing style. Pressure from the stands sometimes hinders the hosts and gives the visitors extra concentration.

Players need to understand one simple thing. Cricket betting is based on probabilities, not guaranteed scenarios. Past results help with analysis, but they only provide a direction for thought. Blind faith in controlling the outcome leads to mistakes. A conscious approach begins with accepting uncertainty.

The Myth of Strategies That Always Bring Profit

When talking about online cricket betting, the topic of a universal strategy often comes up. Supposedly, there is a scheme that consistently brings in money. In cricket, this myth is particularly persistent. There are many formats, diverse lines, and plenty of markets. It seems that somewhere there is a hidden ideal path. The reality is simpler and more severe. 

• Any strategy only works under certain conditions. The format of a test match is different from T20. The pace of the game is different, as are the goals of the teams. What works in one tournament loses its meaning in another. There is simply no universal recipe here.
• Many players rely on catch-up or a fixed percentage of the bank. These schemes create the illusion of order. The person feels control and system. At the same time, the bets themselves remain dependent on the quality of the analysis. Without understanding the match, the strategy turns into a mechanical action.
• Another mistake is related to series. After a few successful bets, there is a feeling of being on the right track. The player continues to follow the pattern. Sooner or later, the series ends. At this point, the strategy ceases to look viable, because every approach has successful periods, and they can end at any moment.

The Myth of Knowing the Game and Guaranteeing Success

Many fans believe that knowledge of cricket is the key to successful betting. A person watches matches for years, knows the rules, remembers legendary encounters. It seems that this is enough. In practice, knowledge of the game and successful betting are two different things.

Knowing the rules helps you understand what is happening on the field. But that is not enough for betting. It is important to read the line, understand the odds, and sense the risks. Players who are well versed in cricket often overestimate their own confidence. Personal preferences influence their choices, which reduces the quality of their decisions.

Cricket includes many formats: ODI, T20, tests. The behaviour of the team in each format is different. A player who is used to one style transfers their expectations to other matches. Analysis requires specifics, not general experience.

Another point is related to the news background: injuries, squad rotation, weather conditions. Fans often learn these details after the match has started. For betting, pre-match information is important. Knowledge of the teams' history is less important than current data.

Success in betting with cricket bookmakers is based on discipline and calculations. A love of the game helps to maintain interest, but it is no substitute for analysis. It is important for players to separate their emotions from the numbers. This approach reduces the influence of personal expectations and makes decisions more balanced.

The Myth of Quick Results and Easy Decisions

One of the most dangerous myths is related to speed. Many people expect quick results. Cricket seems like a good option. There are many matches, plenty of markets, and events are constantly unfolding. It seems like easy money.

Reality paints a different picture. Quick decisions are rarely accurate. In-play betting requires a cool head. The pace of the game is fast. A mistake in assessing a single over changes the whole picture. Impulsive bets lead to a loss of control.

Another illusion concerns the simplicity of the markets. Team victory, total runs, number of wickets. The wording seems straightforward. Behind it lies a complex dynamic. One aggressive batsman can change the pace in a matter of minutes. One successful bowler can ruin an opponent's plans.

Many beginners look for a shortcut. Advice in chat rooms, predictions from friends, loud statements on the internet. The flow of information creates noise. It is difficult to separate useful data from empty words. Without your own analysis, bets lose their foundation.

Cricket requires patience. Results come through experience and learning from mistakes. Slowly accumulating knowledge provides stability. Simple solutions seem attractive, but a systematic approach brings real benefits. Players who accept this rule reduce pressure and make the process more meaningful.

From France, Gojira became one of the most successful and influential death metal acts worldwide, blending progressive sounds and lyrics that brought them notoriety stateside.  Still relevant as of this writing, Gojira even appeared at the opening ceremony of the 2022 Paris Olympics, and if that isn't a form of validation, we aren’t sure what else is!

Does this mean “validation” from the Rock Hall?

We doubt it.