What's new
By:
Filters

An idea to discourage super teams and make the All-Star Game more competitive

♪alt13

♪alt13

Well-Known Member
All playoff teams, at the time of All Star break, get at least one All-Star. The top 4 teams in each conference get 2 All stars the next 4 get 1. The GM of each franchise will assign All Stars from his team. All stars are given a 2 million dollar bonus and another 2 if their team (east or west) eins.
 
♪alt13 said:
All playoff teams, at the time of All Star break, get at least one All-Star. The top 4 teams in each conference get 2 All stars the next 4 get 1. The GM of each franchise will assign All Stars from his team. All stars are given a 2 million dollar bonus and another 2 if their team (east or west) eins.
Click to expand...

The NBA is going to hand out 48 million dollars just to make the All-Star game better? Seems wayyyyy too steep.

If you are going to make to where the top teams gets two all-stars each, then the best thing to do would be do it baseball style where the winning conference gets homecourt. Since you are goign to have 16 total all-star from the top 8 teams (or close to it, top 4 from each side might not be top 8 overall) then those players should try harder to win.
 
Also, I'm sure GM's dont want to make that choice, especially ones that might have debatable 2nd/3rd best players.
 
The only realistic way to make it more competitive is to adopt the rules baseball has.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
The NBA is going to hand out 48 million dollars just to make the All-Star game better? Seems wayyyyy too steep.

If you are going to make to where the top teams gets two all-stars each, then the best thing to do would be do it baseball style where the winning conference gets homecourt. Since you are goign to have 16 total all-star from the top 8 teams (or close to it, top 4 from each side might not be top 8 overall) then those players should try harder to win.
Click to expand...

It's not just to make the game more competitive. More importantly it provides incentive to stay on your team where you're the man rather than go team up with 2 more all stars.

24 million of it is an incentive to win. There's 72 million dollars worth of spreading out the all stars incentive that only costs 48. Each player will look at the full 4 million incentive when it comes time to sign.

Also the league has to pay the players a set amount as a whole. It would count toward that.
 
Last edited:
♪alt13 said:
It's not just to make the game more competitive. More importantly it provides incentive to stay on your team where you're the man rather than go team up with 2 more all stars.
Click to expand...

Still, that's a ton of money to spend on 1 game (or to try and fix the larger problem you spoke of, which I doubt the NBA really cares about and probably likes). The NBA would never do that. The bonuses they give out for the Dunk/3pt/Skills contest are what, 25K?

Not sure why the NBA has to be so desperate to fix an all-star game that is better than every other American pro sports all-star game. Just make some minor changes. I'd rather players not try. Do you really want to watch someone go out there, potentially from the Jazz, and bust their *** for a meaningless game and potentially get injured?
 
♪alt13 said:
It's not just to make the game more competitive. More importantly it provides incentive to stay on your team where you're the man rather than go team up with 2 more all stars.
Click to expand...

And it would also incentives players to leave teams so they could be an all-star. In theory that would work if every player on every team operated with that mindset, but there are always going to be players who dont care and group up. But now you will have those who don't care and group up having potentially an ever bigger advantage because they are going against a more spread out field.
 
Simple fix.



Just do it Celebrity Apprentice style and play for charity money. Winning team each player gets $200,000 to give to charity of their choice.



That should get their blood pumping.
 
I'm not a fan of a guaranteed all star for each playoffs team. Big fan of paying the players to make the game competitive.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Simple fix.



Just do it Celebrity Apprentice style and play for charity money. Winning team each player gets $200,000 to give to charity of their choice.



That should get their blood pumping.
Click to expand...

I'll assume you're being sarcastic.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
And it would also incentives players to leave teams so they could be an all-star. In theory that would work if every player on every team operated with that mindset, but there are always going to be players who dont care and group up. But now you will have those who don't care and group up having potentially an ever bigger advantage because they are going against a more spread out field.
Click to expand...

Part of it is cash and part of it is ego. Perhaps a Harden or Westbrook can woo a Love, Green, or Thompson. I think all those guys would care.
 
I changed my mind. I'd like to see the effect of the all star guarantee on teams makeup. An interesting experiment.
 
Siro said:
I changed my mind. I'd like to see the effect of the all star guarantee on teams makeup. An interesting experiment.
Click to expand...
I just can't sign off on that. That would make a guy like Aldridge an all-star over Anthony Davis. I get rewarding winning, but it also puts a huge penalty for anyone trying to help a bad team. Do we punish Davis because his GM is terrible at his job?

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I just can't sign off on that. That would make a guy like Aldridge an all-star over Anthony Davis. I get rewarding winning, but it also puts a huge penalty for anyone trying to help a bad team. Do we punish Davis because his GM is terrible at his job?

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Or over Deandre Jordan. Nevertheless, I think the all stars itself is insignificant, and I'm not concerned about how this affects it. I am more interested in its effect on the actual game.
 
Siro said:
Or over Deandre Jordan. Nevertheless, I think the all stars itself is insignificant, and I'm not concerned about how this affects it. I am more interested in its effect on the actual game.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but players obviously do place significance on it. I'd just put a max cap on all stars per team at 2, but impose no all-star minimum of any kind.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Yeah, but players obviously do place significance on it. I'd just put a max cap on all stars per team at 2, but impose no all-star minimum of any kind.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

The fact that the players care is what makes this interesting. Might be a significant equalizer for small market teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top