Shakespeare robbed.

[A.R. Roberts]

Very sad to see Shakespeare (http://www.simhorseracing.com/horse.php?HorseID=28545) not on the Hall of Fame ballot.

This goes to show why I care so little about the Hall of Fame and Simmy's lately.

[John Slotmon]

Yeah, but Legendofthepeople is on it. Have to start somewhere.

I'm more concerned about the thoroughbreds nominated (particularly since at least a couple of them haven't been retired for the requisite 10 years yet, at least by my counting).

[The Steward]

Shakespeare hasn't been retired for 10 years yet.

We're in Year 34, so horses who retired at the end of Year 24 (34 minus 24 equals 10) were eligible.

[Paul Heinrich]

I think the parameters changed - you have to be 10 years retired, so if Shakespeare's first retired season was 9 seasons ago (he last raced in year 25), he will likely be on the ballot next year.

ETA, since I'm a few seconds slow on the draw anyway, I'll post the link too! Here.

[Paul Heinrich]

Yeah, but Legendofthepeople is on it. Have to start somewhere.

I'm more concerned about the thoroughbreds nominated (particularly since at least a couple of them haven't been retired for the requisite 10 years yet, at least by my counting).

The thoroughbreds are fine, but some of the mixed breeds are less than 10 years out - not that it matters to me, since I only voted for one of the mixed breed categories.

[A.R. Roberts]

Shakespeare hasn't been retired for 10 years yet.

We're in Year 34, so horses who retired at the end of Year 24 (34 minus 24 equals 10) were eligible.

I'm guessing the fact he was on the TB nominees last year is what has caused my confusion then.

[The Steward]

Shakespeare hasn't been retired for 10 years yet.

We're in Year 34, so horses who retired at the end of Year 24 (34 minus 24 equals 10) were eligible.

I'm guessing the fact he was on the TB nominees last year is what has caused my confusion then.

No, as Slots said the rules have changed. You used to be able to be retired for 8 years, but now it's a whole new system. There is a post in the FAQ thread. This is to let 8 horses in every 2 years rather than every year, and give a shout out to each category instead of lumping Chasers in with all TBs, which might have resulted in not a lot of them getting on.

[A.R. Roberts]

Shakespeare hasn't been retired for 10 years yet.

We're in Year 34, so horses who retired at the end of Year 24 (34 minus 24 equals 10) were eligible.

Isn't 34 minus 24 in terms of years retired actually eleven? Depending on of course the date of which you want to use.

24 - Last Raced, end of year = 1 year.
25 - 2nd year
26 - 3rd year
27 - 4th year
28 - 5th year
29 - 6th year
30 - 7th year
31 - 8th year
32 - 9th year
33 - 10th year
34 - 11th year

Or are we using this method;

25 - Last Raced, end of year = 1st year.
26 - 2nd year
27 - 3rd year
28 - 4th year
29 - 5th year
30 - 6th year
31 - 7th year
32 - 8th year
33 - 9th year
34 - 10th year

I'm confused.

[A.R. Roberts]

I believe its simply

25 - No races, retired = 1st year.
26 - 2nd year
27 - 3rd year
28 - 4th year
29 - 5th year
30 - 6th year
31 - 7th year
32 - 8th year
33 - 9th year
34 - 10th year

However, if a horse retired Week 1 of Year 25, and never raced where would his eligibility fall.

I'm bored.

[John Slotmon]

I was thinking more along the lines of first time horse no longer racing was Year 25, meaning said horse wouldn't be eligible until Year 35.

Really though, I can think of a few horses more deserving than the three "modern" era thoroughbreds, but it's really splitting hairs. I think I've expressed my thoughts on the thoroughbreds of yesteryear. At this point, they're like the 70's Steelers and the NFL Hall of Fame.

[The Steward]

Aww I had that whole post about how to count to 10 and then you did it yourself and it erased mine because of a new post.

[A.R. Roberts]

I was thinking more along the lines of first time horse no longer racing was Year 25, meaning said horse wouldn't be eligible until Year 35.

Really though, I can think of a few horses more deserving than the three "modern" era thoroughbreds, but it's really splitting hairs. I think I've expressed my thoughts on the thoroughbreds of yesteryear. At this point, they're like the 70's Steelers and the NFL Hall of Fame.

I want to just say, I'm blaming Doug Kidwell for even making me look at the ridiculous Hall of Fame. Thanks Doug, you've once again got me ranting on the forum about things I really should care less about, but now I am just posting to post, and I am unable to stop. I have a problem.

[A.R. Roberts]

Aww I had that whole post about how to count to 10 and then you did it yourself and it erased mine because of a new post.

Its not as simple as just counting. It depends on when you place start dates and end dates. Like I said, if you count Year 24 as the first retired year, Year 33 is when eligibility would be. You said, 34-24, but that would actually be eleven years if you count year 24 and 34 as active years. Its actually a start retired date of year 25, meaning at the end of year 34 would be ten years, and entry could happen.

Bah, who cares, can you just delete this thread.

[Lisa Strummer]

I was thinking more along the lines of first time horse no longer racing was Year 25, meaning said horse wouldn't be eligible until Year 35.

Really though, I can think of a few horses more deserving than the three "modern" era thoroughbreds, but it's really splitting hairs. I think I've expressed my thoughts on the thoroughbreds of yesteryear. At this point, they're like the 70's Steelers and the NFL Hall of Fame.

I want to just say, I'm blaming Doug Kidwell for even making me look at the ridiculous Hall of Fame. Thanks Doug, you've once again got me ranting on the forum about things I really should care less about, but now I am just posting to post, and I am unable to stop. I have a problem.

You? Problem? Naaaaaaaaaaah.

[John Slotmon]

I was thinking more along the lines of first time horse no longer racing was Year 25, meaning said horse wouldn't be eligible until Year 35.

Really though, I can think of a few horses more deserving than the three "modern" era thoroughbreds, but it's really splitting hairs. I think I've expressed my thoughts on the thoroughbreds of yesteryear. At this point, they're like the 70's Steelers and the NFL Hall of Fame.

I want to just say, I'm blaming Doug Kidwell for even making me look at the ridiculous Hall of Fame. Thanks Doug, you've once again got me ranting on the forum about things I really should care less about, but now I am just posting to post, and I am unable to stop. I have a problem.

If blame has to be assigned somewhere, Kidwell is as good a culprit as any.