That’s not the worst part.This format is stupid, especially since it was an answer to the criticism that the East doesn’t deserve equal representation since they don’t play anywhere near an equal quality of competition. In other words, they should eliminate eastern conference and western conference and just select 24 players. They came up with the worst combination of possible outcomes.
I would rather career losers not get picked just because that joke of a conference is incapable of getting its **** together and SOMEONE has to get picked.
Nah. Why would captains picking teams make it more competitive?That is not the reason for this format. CP3 and MJ pushed the NBA to change up the All-Star format to create a more competitive game.
Nah. Why would captains picking teams make it more competitive?
The game was unwatchable for me.
While it might balance the teams a little I have to ask, for what?1. This was what the league, players union and owners reported at the time. I doubt that they would all have all been lying.
2. A draft gives the opportunity to balance talent. For example, if the top 6 players are all in one conference. the draft would likely split them between the two teams.
Exactly right.While it might balance the teams a little I have to ask, for what?
Balance might mean something if there was some type of motivation to actually compete, but the mix and match rosters actually reduce competitive motivation imho. When players are playing "for the west" or "for the east" they have a certain bond and shared team identity. They are playing for and representing their conference. With the school yard pick the players are now playing for... LeBron? Durant? Who the **** cares if LeBron's team wins vs Durant? Was Gobert sitting there thinking "I'm gonna go get some rebounds for LeBron." I highly doubt it.
The NBA ASG was weak 20 years ago and it's just a complete joke now.
They need to fix the BS that is fan voting.
They need to make the game mean something to the players.
There should be some sort of consequence for winning or losing the game. If not then just end it. Have "all-star" be an honor given in title only and don't have the players play a meaningless mid-season exhibition game.
The charity thing is something they can tie to the ASG or something they can tie to whatever else, really. It's a nice feel good thing and last year people seemed to think it added some motivation, but this year it seems like it is already played out as a motivator. I mean some charity is gonna get the money and they all deserve it, so it's not like if LeBron's team win the qtr then we save puppies but if Durant wins we burn down an impoverished village somewhere. It's a win/win where either this deserving charity gets 1/100,000,000 of NBA profits or another deserving charity does.I really enjoyed the game, but it was a volleyball game at our local university. Those girls can really play! It was at the perfect time so as to totally circumvent the all star travesty. I guess the one positive is there was something like 1.3 million raised for various charities.
When players are playing "for the west" or "for the east" they have a certain bond and shared team identity. They are playing for and representing their conference.
I think there was a time when they did. Now that is has become so fully a players league, where the player is marketed first and the team a distant second, that has faded dramatically.I've seen zero evidence that players have any pride in their conference. Have you?
Not really, tbh. If the ASG determined home court in the finals it might give the outcome of the game more meaning to the players though.I've seen zero evidence that players have any pride in their conference. Have you?