All that did was just formalize an obviously unwritten rule previously.  I think Shoeless Joe, etc are evidence of that.  Pete knew it meant he wasn't getting in to the HOF, whether he admits it or not.  The baseball hall of fame is an independent group, it can do whatever it wants...I would say barring people who have been permanently banned from the game is a pretty defensible rule.

Love the summer time discussion.

I will not take too much time on a side discussion, though it is a fun one.  This topic has always been a passion of mine (I even have the original newspapers from the New York Times from the series, every player's original obituary, and have four of their baseball cards from 1919 or earlier).  

First off, the HOR Resolution is of little merit.  They pass so many resolutions and acts that mean nothing.  

The other article is an interesting one, but is based solely on the argument that Asinov is a liar, not that Jackson is altogether innocent.  I have often gone back and forth on this, but having read all of the testimonies to the court and the official court transcripts, I still believe that Jackson had guilt in the matter, though at a different level than some. 

Pop culture references (most notably that of Field of Dreams) mention that Jackson was without error and had the only HR of the series. All true, along with the fact that he did bat .375 for the series.  However, he batted only .285 (not bad, but .100 points below his season average) in the five losses.  In the three victories, he batted .545.  In those five losses, he also had 2 strikeouts in 21 plate appearances, or a strikeout every 10.5 PA.  During the regular season that year (and similarly for his career), Jackson struck out only once every 46.4 PA.  He also never walked in those 21 PAs in losses, despite walking once every 11.5 PAs during the season.  The possible conclusion was that he was swinging at pitches during the losses that he would not be swinging at in the victories.  He did walk once in 12 PAs in the victories, holding exactly to form.  He also never struck out in those games.  And that HR...it came in the final game of the series with nobody on and with his team already trailing 5-0.  None of these stats prove his guilt, but they are the counter-argument to the statistics thrown out to prove his innocence.  If you would like, I could also refute the statistic that he had no errors.  There were examples of balls he misplayed in the series, but none resulted in errors. 

I believe that maybe Ted Williams had the correct interpretation of the punishment.  Jackson earned (and deserved) a lifetime suspension from the game.  Thus, his lifetime is over, and he should then be eligible for reinstatement.  

OCF, thank you for the reply.  I, too, believe that as an institution of higher learning, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.  I guess my question then becomes, should Trent be eligible if he earns his degree?  

Also, speaking of Ohio HOF, what are the parameters?  How long must you be graduated to earn the distinction?  Is Leon Williams eligible or is there a five or six year waiting period post-graduation?

My point is he would not have been put on the ballot anyway, just as Shoeless Joe wasn't, because it was an unwritten rule for years that just got formalized in 1991...So the fact the rule was made is fairly irrelevant to me.

I get what you're saying, and I do not necessarily disagree.  However, it is interesting that the plot admitted to by the players was to throw games 1 and 2.  In game one, Joe was 0-4.  His first three at-bats were weak infield groundouts (though he did reach via an error on one).  It was only in his at-bat in the ninth, with the team trailing by eight, that he finally hit a ball to the OF, flying out to right.  Now, this theory goes out the window for game two, when he went 3-4, including a double with the game scoreless.  Yet that was the game where his fielding was questionable.  You may remember the quote from Field of Dreams that mentioned Jackson's glove was "where triples went to die."  He was a pretty good fielder.  In game 2, with Cincy only leading 1-0, a ball was hit to LF (with two outs) near Jackson.  According to reports, he came in on the ball, and despite it being rather catchable, it went over his head, allowing two runs to score and for the batter, Larry Kopf, to get a triple.  How often do you see triples hit to LF?  Not too often, especially with a speedy leftfielder with a relatively strong arm.  Had he caught that ball, the inning would've ended and, quite possibly, Chicago would've won the game. 

One part of your quote is inaccurate.  You stated that there is "no hard evidence of his guilt".  In the actual transcripts of the 1924 trial, Jackson admitted that he accepted money and that he was told that by admitting acceptance, he would be given immunity (he was not).  He did maintain that while he accepted money ($5000 was the amount he admitted accepting), he did not play to lose.  Thus, there is evidence of his guilt in accepting the money, but only circumstantial evidence in proving his guilt in throwing the series.  

I'm not out to convince you (or anybody) that he is without a doubt guilty of throwing the series, as I have never fully convinced myself.  Yet, I do find it inaccurate that articles written like the one you linked make it sound as though he was an innocent bystander caught up in a web of deceit.  He most certainly was not that.   

A good debate and a lot of interesting information from both finnOhio and JSF.  As I look at the evidence as presented here and in other things I've read over the years, I've come the conclusion that I'm conflicted.  My head says he's guilty, but my heart says he's innocent --"Say it ain't so, Joe!"  

[Yes, I know that this quote is legendary, and probably a young fan never uttered them; however, they do express what must have been on the minds of many fans -- of all ages -- at the time.]

Now we're getting into finer details. I think Jackson's illiteracy is pretty widely accepted. He got better after baseball when he ran his store, but when he was playing, he didn't have it. The thing is his innocence doesn't need to be proven because his guilt was never proven. He was cleared in trial and Landis didn't ban him because he threw games but because he knew of the fix (even though it seems like he tried to tell people).

It's impossible to say whether or not his bad play was coincidental. None of us saw the games. But I will say that was an era of bad defense and misplays were commonplace.