SLAM DUNK CONTEST:
The change: participants must've been selected to the All-Star team at least once in their career. This will ensure that only marquee players will compete with each other. Why? So marquee guys like Kobe or Tracy McGrady wouldn't pull out of the dunk contest because they're afraid to lose the dunk contest to backup players that nobody ever heard of (and hence, losing some of their "street cred"). Isn't that the REAL reason why star players never compete in the slam dunk anymore?
Prize: Winner gets $1 million dollars, runner up gets $500K. I don't care how rich these professional athletes are, but $1 million dollars is still a lot of money to anybody. You can bet even the richest NBA stars will put some effort to winning the dunk contest.
ALL-STAR GAME:
The change: The entire 12-man roster should be determined strictly by composite voting system: 33% from fan voting, 33% from media voting, and 33% from Players/Coaches/GMs. However, of the 12 people in the roster, the 5 players with the highest *fan* votes get to start. This system ensures that the 12 most deserving players get into the roster, of which the 5 most popular get to start.
Prize: Starting players for the winning team get $1 million each, and the backup players get $500K each. That's roughly $8.5 million in prize money for one night's work. You can bet that these players will actually play pretty damn hard to win the game. It'd be nice to actually see the NBA's best players put 100% effort into winning a meaningful game. That's a heckuva lot better than the defense-less, dunkfest exhibition charade we see today.
In addition, the conference that wins the All-Star game will have homefield advantage for the NBA finals. It's only appropriate, I think, that homefield will be won through a concerted effort by the best players for each conference. This way, a team with an obnoxiously high winning % won't necessarily win Home Field for the NBA Finals just because its conference is filled with weak teams. And since the coaches of the All-Star team has the best team records going into the All-Star break, you can bet the coach will push his team to win the game.
All in all, this plan will cost the NBA about $10 million in prize money. But you know what? All-Star weekend is becoming more and more of a joke every year, like the NFL's probowl. Everybody knows its meaningless. My way would spice up the weekend, and I think people will actually tune in to see the NBA's best putting 100% effort to compete against each other. I really believe a meaningful, flashy game like that would have TV ratings much, much higher than even the NBA finals series. In the long run, I think the additional revenue the league receives from that All-Star weekend will more than cover the $10 million prize money.
The change: participants must've been selected to the All-Star team at least once in their career. This will ensure that only marquee players will compete with each other. Why? So marquee guys like Kobe or Tracy McGrady wouldn't pull out of the dunk contest because they're afraid to lose the dunk contest to backup players that nobody ever heard of (and hence, losing some of their "street cred"). Isn't that the REAL reason why star players never compete in the slam dunk anymore?
Prize: Winner gets $1 million dollars, runner up gets $500K. I don't care how rich these professional athletes are, but $1 million dollars is still a lot of money to anybody. You can bet even the richest NBA stars will put some effort to winning the dunk contest.
ALL-STAR GAME:
The change: The entire 12-man roster should be determined strictly by composite voting system: 33% from fan voting, 33% from media voting, and 33% from Players/Coaches/GMs. However, of the 12 people in the roster, the 5 players with the highest *fan* votes get to start. This system ensures that the 12 most deserving players get into the roster, of which the 5 most popular get to start.
Prize: Starting players for the winning team get $1 million each, and the backup players get $500K each. That's roughly $8.5 million in prize money for one night's work. You can bet that these players will actually play pretty damn hard to win the game. It'd be nice to actually see the NBA's best players put 100% effort into winning a meaningful game. That's a heckuva lot better than the defense-less, dunkfest exhibition charade we see today.
In addition, the conference that wins the All-Star game will have homefield advantage for the NBA finals. It's only appropriate, I think, that homefield will be won through a concerted effort by the best players for each conference. This way, a team with an obnoxiously high winning % won't necessarily win Home Field for the NBA Finals just because its conference is filled with weak teams. And since the coaches of the All-Star team has the best team records going into the All-Star break, you can bet the coach will push his team to win the game.
All in all, this plan will cost the NBA about $10 million in prize money. But you know what? All-Star weekend is becoming more and more of a joke every year, like the NFL's probowl. Everybody knows its meaningless. My way would spice up the weekend, and I think people will actually tune in to see the NBA's best putting 100% effort to compete against each other. I really believe a meaningful, flashy game like that would have TV ratings much, much higher than even the NBA finals series. In the long run, I think the additional revenue the league receives from that All-Star weekend will more than cover the $10 million prize money.
Comment