NASCAR's All-Star Race Best Among All-Star Gatherings

I know. NASCAR is boring because all the drivers do is "turn left".

The theory that all they do is turn left is correct, but NASCAR is not boring and last evening's All-Star Race proved that. Look at the other All-Star games.

The NFL Pro Bowl is really a joke, but football is in a bad spot here. There's no clear time to hold the event. The fans aren't solely responsible for the starters as the coaches and players also have a say to avoid a popularity contest. But shouldn't this be for the fans? It really seems all the Pro Bowl is for is players either receiving a winners or losers check. And don't forget that most of the time, the players that are selected (even though they all say it's an honor to be selected) don't even show up to play. They devise some sort of injury reason to avoid the travel and the game.

On that note, I do excuse Brett Favre from last year's game. His ankle was busted pretty bad in the NFC Championship.

Major League Baseball added a purpose to their All-Star Game when Bud Selig in his infinite wisdom decided to award home filed advantage to the league that won. It takes away from the exhibition feel, but adding that "incentive" has seen a number of reason why other changes should be made to the setup. Some say the rosters should be cut back instead of expended as they were recently. Others have the opinion that be placing such a "incentive", they will ask if it's necessary to have a representative from every team. That could also lead to a decrease in roster size. The fans vote for the starters, but almost all of them are out of the game by the fifth inning. Managers feel the pressure to play every position player and that could offset most forms of strategy, too.

While there's no such incentive for the NHL's All-Star Game, they do offer the skills competition on the evening prior to the game. The stars of the league have an opportunity to show off their wares, but that's about it. The game itself couldn't be more boring. Seeing goals scored is nice, but where's the hitting? Isn't that one of many reasons why hockey appeals to some (other than seeing a fight)? Sure, some will flip it on a hockey game just to see if there's a scuffle or two, but we want to view thundering open ice hits, too. There's the injury risk, sure, but, physical play carries a game. The NHL All-Star severely lacks there.

The NBA's All-Star Weekend is an awesome spectacle and is the next best All-Star gala. The fans vote the players who start. They add the 3-point and slam dunk contest. The weekend as something for everyone. The game itself is nothing more than a glorified exhibition that holds zero purpose other than to entertain the fans. That's what All-Star games should be, right?

NASCAR has this All-Star thing down pat.

Fan voting? Sure. After the first "segment" the fans cast a vote to determine one driver to continue.

All the drivers have as shot. If you're fortunate enough to qualify well, advance by finishing 1st or 2nd in the Showdown or attain the fan vote, you have a shot at winning...and here's where NASCAR dials up the intensity meter.

Incentive? How about a purse of $1 million to the winner. Plus, if you win a segment, you get $25,000. Not bad for a days work.

But this isn't only for the drivers and their teams. The fans snatch the opportunity to also boast about how their favorite driver won the biggest event of the season. Those at Daytona, Indy, Darlington and even Talladega may disagree, but no question winning the All-Star Race can lead to good things.

Just ask Michael Waltrip. He had never won a points-based race, but he did mange to win the All-Star Race and collect that check. He turned that into a stint at Dale Earnhardt, Inc. where he did win a race or two.

Just ask Tony Stewart. Just last year, Stewart's fledgling team, Stewart-Haas, was having a bit of struggle. Stewart won the All-Star Race which kick started his 2009 season and landed him in the Chase.

Last night was one for Kurt Busch. Catch the last few laps here.



Congrats, Kurt...and please calm down your brother.

Slam Dunk Contest not what it used to be

So Nate Robinson is the first three-time winner of the Slam Dunk Contest. Seeing as he's listed at 5'9", it's not only amazing that he can leap so high, but that he can perform some of the dunks he does. Nate can't palm the ball.

As I watched last night, I caught myself flashing back to the days of Dominique and Air Jordan when they battled one another for the title. I wondered if this exhibition could ever return to those days. Simply, no. But the reasons are not as simple.

Even with Robinson's historic feat (and I'm not downplaying his accomplishment), the Slam Dunk contest isn't close to what it used to be. I'm not saying that because there's no LeBron and no Kobe. I'm saying that because of a few factors.

I'm saying that because the "wow" factor isn't there anymore. One of reasons to watch it was to see if anything innovative was being done with the dunks. You really can only go so far with dunking a basketball, right? But these boundries are being pushed all the time.

I'll trace back a bit about the "names" not being there. That used to be a draw. Those "names" no longer perform at the contest and the NBA and its fans are at a loss because of it. Who would you rather see in a Slam Dunk final: Nate Robinson v. DeMar DeRozan or LeBron v. Kobe? Silly question, I know.

The rules are different, too. Remember when players performed a dunk, got their score and watched the others to see if they advanced to the next round? There were no time limits involved or multiple attempts. Take one shot and see how you do.

And when it got to the final two, the scores determined the winner not voting done online or via text messaging? Me, too. It's almost evolved into a popularity contest. I'm guessing since the fans vote on who should play in the game, the NBA figures the fans should determine the winner.

There were multiple rounds. If you had 8 competitors, they cut down to 4, then 2. You would see if a player was really mentally ready for this. Not now. Two rounds. That's not so bad. The players don't get as tired that way and that's almost (I said, almost) a plus.

The Slam Dunk Contest can never be what it once was, the jewel of All-Star weekend.

Vince Carter, where have you gone?

NBA All-Star Snubs

It's time for America's favorite game show...Guess who was snubbed!!

With the announcement of the NBA's All-Star reserves last evening, there's always (and I do mean always) a wave of those that were not chosen by the coaches within their conference to be a reserve. I have found one common thread, but we'll wait a bit before that's unveiled.

First to the Eastern Conference. I'll give you the stats of three players who were "contending" for one spot.

Player A: 19.4 points a game/11.6 rebounds
Player B: 19.0 points a game/9.4 rebounds
Player C: 13.6 points a game/9.8 rebounds

Who are you selecting? To me, it's so obvious that Player A deserves the nod, right? Well, if it isn't Player A, it has to be Player B. Player B scores more then Player C and barely has less boards. So, if it's not Player A, then it's Player B, right?

(Buzzer sounds).

I'm sorry. It's Player C that the coaches selected. You've probably been able to figure out that since I do not have any assist numbers, that these players are most likely centers, and they are.

Player A is David Lee of the New York Knicks. Player B is Brook Lopez of the New Jersey Nets. Player C is Al Horford (right) of the Atlanta Hawks. Based on straight stats, Lee should be going, but Horford got the nod...for one reason. He's a Hawk and Atlanta has won 29 games in comparison to the Knicks 18 wins and we all know about the plight of the Nets and their 4 whole victories.

We're going to stay in the East with the second snub.

Player A: 18.7 points a game/4.8 boards/3.6 assists
Player B: 21.9 points a game/8.7 boards/1.2 assists
Player C: 18.6 points a game/11.0 boards/1.9 assists

This one's a bit tricky as two of the three made the reserve squad. I'm adding a bit of a wrinkle, too. Who, of these three should not go?

I'm thinking Player A shouldn't be going. I know he's got more assists, but he gets clobbered on the boards. Player C dominates on the boards. Player C does have the lowest acoring average, but it's a mere 0.1 points compared to Player A.

(Buzzer)

Players A and C made the team and Player B (the highest scorer) is left out in the cold. Player A is Boston's Paul Pierce. Player B is Washington's Antawn Jamison (left). Player C is Charlotte's Gerald Wallace. Yes, Jamison is clearly being snubbed because he's a Wizard, a team that only has 14 wins. The Bobcats have 22 and the C's have 29.

In the West, here's the picture at a certain position.

Player A: 23.1 points/5.0 assists/4.6 rebounds
Player B: 26.0 points/5.6 assists/4.3 rebounds
Player C: 24.8 points/4.9 assists/4.8 rebounds

One made it, two didn't. Who made it? Player B should clearly get this one, shouldn't he? He has the highest scoring average and higher assist numbers. You couldn't go wrong with Player C either. He scores more than Player A and has a couple more boards overall. He only lacks a tad in assists.

(Buzzer)

Wrong. That honor as a reserve would go to Player A despite having the lowest scoring average. Player A is Portland's Brandon Roy (right). Player B is Golden State's Monta Ellis. Player C is Sacramento's Tyreke Evans.

Again, a winning team's player get rewarded. Portland has 27 wins while Golden State has amassed only 13 and Sacramento has 16.

There's no exact way anyone can surmise how a player is placed on an All-Star team. To me, it's about stats. Reward those having good seasons. I know that others may feel a different way and would also add winning into their equation.

But the NBA already has something for winning. It's called the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy.