The NBA went backward by changing the All-Star Game format

There are only a few things in the NBA world that we can agree on. Here’s one of them — the 2017 All-Star Game was terrible. Or maybe that's being too nice, so I'll be more clear — it's the worst All-Star Game ever.

It didn't have a promising start as in July it was moved from Charlotte to New Orleans, a city it had been in two years prior, as the NBA was protesting a legal bill. The festivities before Sunday were, all in all, pretty mid. But, like with every All-Star weekend, conclusions on whether it was good or not are made as of Monday, and it's largely dependent on how the main course, the All-Star Game, goes. And this was a disaster.

It was an offensive explosion where both teams combined to score 374 points, a record for an All-Star Game, 43 total made 3-pointers, eight 20+ point scorers, two scoring over 40 and the hometown Pelican Anthony Davis scoring 52 points, the most points in ASG history. That could be viewed as entertaining on paper, but when you watch the actual game, and particularly how Davis got the scoring record, it's clear that it wasn't as earned as it may seem, and it certainly wasn't entertaining to watch. Reggie Miller, commentator for that very game, said the game was "an absolute joke...."

Long gone are the days where All-Stars compete for all 48 minutes, instead opting to go at half-speed for the first half and really compete in the second half if the game is still close. That led to entertaining finishes from 2011 to 2015, where four of the five games were decided by five points or less. But, in 2016 and 2017 something went wrong, and it was clear that a change was needed. LeBron James himself agreed with that notion, and Chris Paul, president of the National Basketball Player's Association, reportedly called Adam Silver the day after the game to talk about changing the format.

So, there was a change — no longer would the game be two teams divided by conferences, but rather teams drafted by the leading vote-getters in each conference. There would be built-in stakes because of the format, the league thought, because captains would want to have bragging rights for drafting the better team, while players selected after certain players would have a chip on their shoulder and look to perform well.

And, it worked — it produced awesome games in 2018 and 2019, the latter featuring a 28-12 run by Team LeBron in the fourth quarter to seal a win. In 2020, there were more changes, with a charity component being added for the winners of each quarter, as well as the "Elam Ending" being implemented to honor Kobe Bryant. This entailed adding 24 points to the score of the leading team entering the fourth quarter, to honor the late Kobe Bryant, and that number being the one that needed to be reached to determine a winner.

This latest addition led to, I'm comfortable in saying, the best All-Star Game of all time, because it had a great combination of explosive offense and a VERY memorable finish.

What does the perfect NBA All-Star Game look like?

I should note that I'm 23 years old, so my definition of what a great NBA All-Star Game is will surely vary from consensus. Some may look at the slugfests that happened in the early 2000s as the framework for what a great All-Star Game is. And I don't disagree with those games being fun, because they are very rewatchable. And they should definitely bring back players wearing their team's jerseys if the game's jerseys are going to be so bad (which bleeds into the topic of jerseys, in general, getting worse, but that's another topic for another day).

Having said that, I think the perfect ASG is somewhere in between both the early 2000s style and the 2020 one — a track meet in the first half with some plays sprinkled in where there's defensive effort, but for the most part, it's half-assed, and the game tightens up as the second half progresses if it's close. I do enjoy the stretch of minutes where it's not taken that seriously and players can shine on offense with little to no resistance. After all, it's supposed to be an exhibition game featuring 24 of the best talents the league has to offer. The inflated offensive numbers aren't the worst thing in the world as long as the quality of shots isn't what it's turned into. The record amount of 3s also isn't the biggest deal, because that just comes with the evolution of the game with teams taking and making more 3s than ever before.

The "Elam Ending" was a nice addition too. Developed by Nick Elam and first implemented in The Basketball Tournament for all its games in 2018, was made to prevent games from getting boring in crunch time. The long version can be found on the tourney's website, but the short version is that the end of games could get boring with fouling when it's a two- or three-possession game, and especially if it's a blowout. So, to solve that, they added a number (in their case, eight) to the score of the team leading, and the winner was the first team that reached that amount. In a vacuum, I see it as a fun addition to the All-Star Game. It's a nice change of pace, but shouldn't be implemented on all games.

Personally, I quite enjoy the aspect of the strategy of managing the clock at the end of a game and forcing players to make their free throws and control the ball to seal a win. In the case of blowouts, that "garbage time" is great for players who otherwise don't get playing time to be on the court and try to play well. It also lends itself to some anti-climactic finishes, like the 2020 All-Star Game that ended on a free throw. However, again, it's a change of pace to make a game featuring the league's best very competitive at the end, especially with the amount added (24, 16 more than TBT) lending itself to be a full quarter of competitive ball, if the game is close.

2020 set the bar very high for what an ASG could look like under these parameters. And then 2021 came, grabbed that bar and threw it to the Earth's core. It sucked, wasn't memorable (cool shot-making by Stephen Curry and Damian Lillard, I guess!), it shouldn't have happened because of a global pandemic, all the competitions were made on the same day and featured most players that were already in the game, and the game was hampered by injuries (Kevin Durant, Devin Booker, Anthony Davis nor Joel Embiid played for Team Durant). 2022 was a nice bounce back, only decided by three points, featured Curry going off for 50 points with 16 3s (All-Star Game record), and LeBron James hit the game-winner in Cleveland.

And then 2023 happened... or did it? Because, quite frankly, I can't recall any single play from that game. I barely remember it happening in Utah. I know Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown had a brief stretch where they went at each other, but I don't remember a specific bucket from that. It was so bad that players and coaches from the game called out the effort (or lack thereof). Maybe it was the location. Maybe it was that it started poorly and no one had the guts to be the one to change the effort. Maybe it was the lack of star power (Curry, Durant and Zion Williamson were out with injuries, Giannis Antetokounmpo only played 20 seconds and James only played 14 minutes), more so than more years. Whatever the case, it was a mess.

With that, we are in an odd position: the new format produced its most viral dud (2017 was bad, but social media wasn't at the level it is now) ever, in terms of watchability and, most importantly to them, ratings. So, was the NBA going to stay the course, waiting for better circumstances to be in their favor, or make further changes in an effort to make the product more watchable at a time when broadcast rights were coming up? Well, you already know the answer to that based on the title of this piece...

Back to "conference supremacy" we go!

Along with a slew of other changes, the NBA went back to the old East vs West format to give the All-Star Game better ratings. Out with the unique Elam Ending. Get rid of the All-Star Draft entirely. We're back to conferences playing each other!

There are some clear pros to the change. it makes the understanding of the game much easier and it gives the game some juice for at least one season, which is what the NBA needs with its broadcasting rights coming up. They just need one ASG to be great, and then the rest can be sorted out with adjustments when needed. For now, they just need to secure those broadcast rights, and once they're under contract they can look at things through another lens. Besides, if the format was kept the same for this season, we would get another Team LeBron and Team Giannis affair, and Lord knows we don't need that. (James is 5-0 in the format).

Outside of those, I see few reasons in favor of this format in 2024 and beyond. The drafting format between 2018 and 2023 produced gems, or at the very least above-average games, in four of its five editions. And that's even considering that one team was stacked over the other (LeGM at it), and top 10 players were hurt to impact the last two games. The idea of "conference supremacy" doesn't move me, and it clearly doesn't move the players, because the reason we're here in the first place was because they didn't show effort in 2016 and 2017 to cause the first change.

Not only is the concept dead because it fundamentally doesn't matter, since it doesn't give anyone a postseason advantage (if it did, that's silly) and the West has always owned the East. Since the 2000s, the stars and best teams have always been in the West. It's tougher to make it to the playoffs in the West, oftentimes the real Finals have happened in the Western Conference Finals, and the depth of good teams is better in the West.

The league had found a solution in 2017, had some great games, and just because of a single dud decided to revert back to the old format that caused problems in the first place.

What the future of the ASG could look like

The 2023 version of the game wasn't that great, and there are some quick fixes to resolve that. The core is captains drafting teams and the Elam Ending should've stayed because they were working. The draft, however, as I stated, wasn't great. As Lillard pointed out, the whole drafting process was a slog because of so much dialogue by the Inside the NBA people and commercials in between. Here's Lillard, courtesy of ESPN's Brian Windhorst:

"Some people stayed in the same locker room [with players not on their team]. Everything just felt long. It was an hour between everything. It felt like the longest All-Star that I've been a part of."

In theory, it's a good concept to have the draft take place right before the game to add to the aspect of streetball and the drafting of teams on the spot. The old version, having the draft be pre-recorded and broadcast live weeks before the game, was neat, but I think there's a world where drafting right before the game works.

Maybe have the draft happen on Saturday afternoon, the time when the All-Star practices usually play out. Don't have panelists give analysis on each pick as they happen. Have them happen at whatever pace the captains determine, like streetball itself. And don't have commercials in between rounds, advertisers be dammed! (This last bit is highly unlikely, but one can dream).

As was the case with the IST, it's very evident how much players value financial incentives for better play. I'll be the first to admit that it sucks for star players to not want to compete as hard nowadays for just the sake of competitive pride and bragging rights, but such is the climate we're in, and decision-makers have to adjust to that. So, add more financial incentives for the players. The charity component is a neat one, but maybe the winning purse should be big enough to where star players are motivated by it.

Another key wrinkle would be to just select the best 24 players for the All-Star Game, and not divide it by 12 for each conference. It logically doesn't make sense if the game isn't going to be East vs. West anymore. For selecting, pick the four top vote-getters in the backcourt as the starting pool, and the six best frontcourt players, and do the same with the bench.

Getting back to the format that we actually have in front of us, this weekend's All-Star Game will probably be a breath of fresh air. It will likely be competitive, regardless of whether it's fueled by the concept of "conference supremacy", stars being hurt, or the game being close. The league won't care about the reasons; as long as it's competitive, they'll champion the new format and point to it as a reason for broadcast partners to pay to have the rights to it. Next year's will probably follow the same script, or a similar one at least. Give it two seasons and we'll be back at square one, where we were in 2017, and where the league perceived we were this offseason: the All-Star Game needs to be fixed.