Pro Sports All-Star Games
Professional Sports All-Star games rank thusly in order of importance and seriousness:
1.) baseball
2.) hockey
T-3.) football and basketball
I bring this up because I turned on the NBA All-Star game last night for about ten minutes. Don't get me wrong, it was mildly entertaining to see the best in the game dunking on each other and burying three pointers, but it had the congenial feel of pre-game shootaround. The score was in the 40s after the first quarter. Guys were throwing alley-oops off the back board, dribbling between their legs...it was the Harlem Globetrotters. It was a circus, on top of the circus that already is pro-basketball. That's fine, but it's not enough to get me to watch.
When I watch an all-star game I go to see the sport's best, at their best, playing their hardest. I don't think this is too much to ask. If not, then just have the skills competitions and call it quits, as I believe was suggested in Sports Illustrated recently, but don't bill it as a "game."
Baseball somehow has managed to preserve a competitive and serious all-star contest. This probably goes back to the tradition of the all-star game, which started in the 1940s. Back then (and until 10 years ago) teams from the National League and the American League did not play each other AT ALL during the regular season. The all-star game was, therefore, a chance for the best from each league to test themselves against opponents they would never face all year. It was truly a test of one league versus the other, and the outcome, though meaningless in terms of the season, was a point of immense pride for the winning league. Now, inter-league play has brought the two leagues into contact in the regular season, so the all-star game has lost some of its mystique. Also, as everyone knows, pro athletes move around much more now, that has further diminished the mystery and pride of the game. However, it still remains intact. Baseball is not based on physical contact between the players, and therefore the athletes have less at stake in competing at their best for an exhibition game, risking injury, etc. Also, baseball instituted the rule that the league that wins the all-star game gets home field advantage in the World Series, which I think is an atrocious rule, but it does, however, put some importance back into the all-star game.
The hockey all-star game has also stayed competitive for some reason. Unlike baseball, hockey does have the serious physical element, but the players still seem to go 100% in the all-star game. Maybe it is the various formats they have used; North America vs. World, East vs. West, etc. Or maybe hockey players just care more about their sport. I don't know.
That brings us to basketball and football. The basketball all-star game, as I said, has degraded into a slam-dunk contest, free-for-all shoot-out with a game clock and referees. It is a joke, but then, the entire NBA has taken on a joke element to it in the past ten or so years, am I wrong? It seems the most like a circus of all the pro sports.
The the NFL's Pro-Bowl is such a joke I don't think I've ever even watched a minute of one game. I don't understand the purpose of the Pro-Bowl, or why it even still exists. It is the only all-star game that takes place after the season is over. Most of the players in it have to come back after the season and play after a month or six weeks off. And such a brutal sport as football, where the players are out to literally maul and crush each other, does not lend itself to exhibition play. I think Drew Brees even got injured in this year's contest. Unfortunate. Maybe they should do a flag football game, or just a skills competition or something. Who wants to wage all-out physical warfare against rabid, 300-pound killers for five months...and then do it one more week as an exhibition?
1.) baseball
2.) hockey
T-3.) football and basketball
I bring this up because I turned on the NBA All-Star game last night for about ten minutes. Don't get me wrong, it was mildly entertaining to see the best in the game dunking on each other and burying three pointers, but it had the congenial feel of pre-game shootaround. The score was in the 40s after the first quarter. Guys were throwing alley-oops off the back board, dribbling between their legs...it was the Harlem Globetrotters. It was a circus, on top of the circus that already is pro-basketball. That's fine, but it's not enough to get me to watch.
When I watch an all-star game I go to see the sport's best, at their best, playing their hardest. I don't think this is too much to ask. If not, then just have the skills competitions and call it quits, as I believe was suggested in Sports Illustrated recently, but don't bill it as a "game."
Baseball somehow has managed to preserve a competitive and serious all-star contest. This probably goes back to the tradition of the all-star game, which started in the 1940s. Back then (and until 10 years ago) teams from the National League and the American League did not play each other AT ALL during the regular season. The all-star game was, therefore, a chance for the best from each league to test themselves against opponents they would never face all year. It was truly a test of one league versus the other, and the outcome, though meaningless in terms of the season, was a point of immense pride for the winning league. Now, inter-league play has brought the two leagues into contact in the regular season, so the all-star game has lost some of its mystique. Also, as everyone knows, pro athletes move around much more now, that has further diminished the mystery and pride of the game. However, it still remains intact. Baseball is not based on physical contact between the players, and therefore the athletes have less at stake in competing at their best for an exhibition game, risking injury, etc. Also, baseball instituted the rule that the league that wins the all-star game gets home field advantage in the World Series, which I think is an atrocious rule, but it does, however, put some importance back into the all-star game.
The hockey all-star game has also stayed competitive for some reason. Unlike baseball, hockey does have the serious physical element, but the players still seem to go 100% in the all-star game. Maybe it is the various formats they have used; North America vs. World, East vs. West, etc. Or maybe hockey players just care more about their sport. I don't know.
That brings us to basketball and football. The basketball all-star game, as I said, has degraded into a slam-dunk contest, free-for-all shoot-out with a game clock and referees. It is a joke, but then, the entire NBA has taken on a joke element to it in the past ten or so years, am I wrong? It seems the most like a circus of all the pro sports.
The the NFL's Pro-Bowl is such a joke I don't think I've ever even watched a minute of one game. I don't understand the purpose of the Pro-Bowl, or why it even still exists. It is the only all-star game that takes place after the season is over. Most of the players in it have to come back after the season and play after a month or six weeks off. And such a brutal sport as football, where the players are out to literally maul and crush each other, does not lend itself to exhibition play. I think Drew Brees even got injured in this year's contest. Unfortunate. Maybe they should do a flag football game, or just a skills competition or something. Who wants to wage all-out physical warfare against rabid, 300-pound killers for five months...and then do it one more week as an exhibition?
Comments
the cuz