Then start a Rock (no roll) Hall of Fame.I didn't really have to, since I've been there, and seen it's incomprehensibility (but I skimmed through the whole thread). Doesn't mean it should. I just object to it from a standpoint of logic though. It doesn't make sense.
Maybe they just have a broader and more inclusive definition of rock and roll. Speaking of which:
Def Leppard
Kiss
Led Zeppelin
Twisted Sister
Billy Idol
Joan Jett
Pat Benatar
Heart
Bon Jovi
Cheap Trick
George Thorogood
Meatloaf
Guns n Roses
Quiet Riot
Poison
Judas Priest
That's a really narrow and restrictive list. There are a few artists I like in there, but it really doesn't overlap much with any list of great rock and roll I'd put together.
Bear in mind that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a commercial enterprise. It's supposed to attract crowds to show up and visit the museum. If it takes the narrowest, most conventional definition of rock and roll, it's going to appeal to a smaller percentage of the population.
Those bands are the very definition of Rock and Roll. Or the term Classic Rock. If they wanted to broaden their horizons, why not add Green Day, Creed, or Collective Soul. There are other ways of updating the Hall of Fame without drastically changing it.

When I hear the term "Rock and Roll", I don't think of Billy Joel or Pat Benatar. Or Poison and Quiet Riot for that matter. My mind tends to recall Elvis or Little Richard. But they and their contempories were inducted in the first few rounds. Not a good way to created a buzz every year.

Have any of those bands (in bold) been around long enough to get in? Has it been 25 years since their first records came out?