Could they make the ASG matter?

by Idog1976 on Feb 12, 2009 6:59 PM PST

I was watching Talking Ball on CSN just now and Ian Furness brought up an interesting idea. They were all talking about how the All-Star Game is a disgrace yada, yada. They talked about how Magic's return game seemed to change the intensity. Then Ian Furness said "Could they make the All-Star Game matter like you know how in Baseball it matters for home field." I'm not sure what he meant as I don't follow Baseball, but I got the gist.

Then I thought..hmm...would that work to incentivize the All-Star Game and make it matter by giving either the West or the East home court advantage in the Finals regardless of seed and record? I think that would certainly light a fire as a few of the best players on both teams would play hard.

Alternately, it was suggested that some of the main players such as LBJ and Kobe could talk about how it mattered this year. I'm not sure that would work but it would be cool if it did. Would it be nice to see a competitive game? I think so and I don't think I'm alone on this. Thoughts folks?

Poll

Should they make the All-Star Game matter?

Yes the West or East would own home court advantage in the Finals regardless of seed or record.

15 votes

Yes, but with the incentive I describe below.

1 votes

Yes, but it should come from the best players in the locker room.

2 votes

No, the All-Star Game is a show and I enjoy watching the spectacle.

42 votes

No, for other reasons (explain below)

2 votes

62 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

NO!! I hate the Baseball model

Why should you lose home court advantage that fought for all season long because some prima donna’s decided to try some windmill dunk instead of a lay in

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

by 92wastheyear on Feb 12, 2009 7:04 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

The baseball model is a complete failure

No way should an all-star game determine home-field advantage in a championship series. That is so incredibly dumb. – Elgin

Since when do we need to ponder to froth? - jscot

by 22baylor on Feb 13, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions

I read some round table the other day (can’t remember which national outfit put it out) with a bunch of ideas to improve all star weekend and the all star game. One of the main themes was to figure out a way to incentivize people to play some defense. One idea was to give out a defensive player of the game award (I like it, easy to implement), another one was to make the game’s bonus pay (didn’t know players got it), a winner-take all approach rather than both team’s getting paid.

More to your question, the baseball model is deplorable and only slightly better than the old baseball model which was to alternate home field yearly. Neither model rewards the team that earned the best record, and thus they both stink. In basketball it would be even worse, because of the 4 major American sports leagues, the home advantage in the playoffs is by far the biggest in the NBA.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Feb 12, 2009 7:10 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

Good point.

I like the pay being higher for the winners idea.

".. is gumby an alien?"

by staylost on Feb 12, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions

I agree

Winners get the bonus, losers get nothing.

Home court should not be on the line.

by lurtsman on Feb 12, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions

I also like the

Winners take all with money idea. Blazers need to beat GSW tonight.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Feb 12, 2009 7:33 PM PST up reply actions

I think these guys are a bit out of touch

I watched that talkin ball thing too and what they don’t seem to realize is that it is a competitive game….in the fourth quarter. Look, we all know that these guys don’t play defense and try a ton of flashy plays for the first three quarters of the game, but when they get to the fourth, and the score is tight, these guys start playing to win. There is no more crazy turnovers, no more ole’ defense, no more centers taking fall away threes, these guys want to win.

If you want to watch a hard fought intense battle for 48 minutes, watch the NBA finals. If you want to see the best players in the world try some new and intresting moves for 36 minutes, then go all out for a win for the last twelve, the all star game is the place for you

by SalemORguy on Feb 12, 2009 7:20 PM PST reply actions

Or about 20 minutes

if you’re talking about the L@kers in game 6.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Feb 12, 2009 7:33 PM PST up reply actions

OK, you got me there

but I believe my premise still holds true

by SalemORguy on Feb 12, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions

Absolutely NO.

Unless you want injuries to start piling up.

Basketball is not baseball. In basketball, winning means defensive plays, and that means bodying and getting straight up physical with the other team. Not quite so in baseball, at least not for long periods of time.

The idea of the all star game is to have great players showcased for one weekend. With too much of an incentive, players are going to start getting injured trying to stop the opposing team’s superstars. Sure, it’d be a great game to play, but not with the risk of injury to star players.

Think of it this way. Let’s say the game matters for something important, like playoff home court. Roy is going in for a layup to get the West lead. Dwight, seeing this, fouls him hard to stop him. I will not say any more.

by RecordTOs on Feb 12, 2009 8:20 PM PST reply actions

Maybe an incentive could be

Some sort of special considerations for events the next year?

by RecordTOs on Feb 12, 2009 8:35 PM PST reply actions

Any idea those dudes come up with

is all but guaranteed to be a poor one. Those guys have way too much space to fill, which usually leads to making mountains out of ant hills.

NBA All-Star is easily the best of all the major sports. Is it the best thing ever? Hardly, but it’s entertaining, guys play hard, and it draws a nice audience. The fact that the winners get 20K more than the losers is more than enough impetus to get those guys to play hard. Millionaire or not, no one likes to leave 20 grand on the table.

Has home field advantage in the MLB all-star changed anything? Does anyone really think any of the players are going harder because of the chance of homefield advantage in the World Series? Hell no. Maybe the coaches use their subs more wisely, but other than that, there’s no difference. And baseball sucks, so there’s that as well.

by Lance Uppercut on Feb 12, 2009 10:31 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

So the players do

get more on the winning team?

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Feb 12, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions

I concur

There is no reason to make homecourt advantage linked to the damn Allstar game of all things, and it’s just something someone says who doesn’t follow basketball.

I put this in the same category of people who say they should widen the court, raise the rim, and other meaningless changes that would ‘make it better’ since the game is such a disgrace.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Feb 13, 2009 4:15 AM PST up reply actions

I just was floating the idea out there

because I thought it was interesting and thought provoking. I follow Basketball rather closely actually. My only improvement to the game would be two refs up high on Tennis style reffing chairs.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Feb 13, 2009 7:13 PM PST up reply actions

Oh, sorry, I definitely ripping on you!

You’re my pal!

I’ve just had stupid conversations before with people at restaurants and bars who don’t watch the NBA but say it is a disgrace and need to make stupid rule changes.

You were just bringing up an interesting conversation starter, you didn’t do anything wrong and I certainly was directing my comment at you.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Feb 13, 2009 11:16 PM PST up reply actions

Haha-- definitely NOT ripping on you

Should be the title.

Hee hee.

Mort

by Mortimer on Feb 13, 2009 11:17 PM PST up reply actions

Who cares . . . . ?

put a body on 'em

by RayBourque on Feb 12, 2009 11:18 PM PST reply actions

If you want defense in the All Star Game

Get some defensive all stars. Voting is based on offense, and there are a good number of guys in the game who can D up, but nobody who is a stopper first. Really though, would you rather see Shane Battier take a charge or Dwight Howard ally op to himself off the backboard and start up a poster company with Yao?

Ducks Go!
yep, lots and lots of blow.
We should change the name of the blog to addictedtoblow.com

by trumpetduck on Feb 13, 2009 8:00 AM PST reply actions

for starters

n offense to guys like rudy,n.robinson,and r.gay but make a $10.mil winner takes all dunk contest between the following guys,vince,kobe,lebron,howard,j.richardson,and d.mason.and that’s for starters then make sure the stars of the league competes in all the competitons.no wnba rejects or marginal guys nobody cares about.also most importantly let the real fans get a real oppertunity to be part of the live festivities.instead of these rich fortune500 cooperate zealots,who spits at us real fans

by fatty on Feb 13, 2009 9:36 AM PST reply actions

Bragging rights

I think we just need to have more smack-talking and beat downs before the all-star game. Maybe some sort of forum where the all-star players can say what their going to do to their counterparts in the other conference .

If Kobe started smack-talking Lebron we’d have a hell of a game.

by boppitywop on Feb 13, 2009 10:21 AM PST reply actions