All Star Game

[schulzte 18]

ESPN Article

Scott Burnside and Damien Cox had an interesting idea about the All-Star game, and I think it would be great. Back in the day, the All Star Game format was that the Stanley Cup Champions would play all the rest of the All-Stars in the league and host the game. So this year the Ducks would host the game and play one unifed team of All-Stars from the rest of the league. Conventional thinking would say the Ducks would get creamed, but it would be an interesting game! And the Ducks would have home ice and have been playing together all year. The record of the games when this was the format was: All-Stars 13

Defending Champs 8

1 Tie

What do you think?

[irishtemper14+25 11]

sounds like a cool idea, but i also like the idea of stanley cup finals home advantage goes to winner of all star game

[toby91_ca 620]

sounds like a cool idea, but i also like the idea of stanley cup finals home advantage goes to winner of all star game

You can't be serious...please, tell me you are not serious.

[auxlepli 17]

ESPN Article

Scott Burnside and Damien Cox had an interesting idea about the All-Star game, and I think it would be great. Back in the day, the All Star Game format was that the Stanley Cup Champions would play all the rest of the All-Stars in the league and host the game. So this year the Ducks would host the game and play one unifed team of All-Stars from the rest of the league. Conventional thinking would say the Ducks would get creamed, but it would be an interesting game! And the Ducks would have home ice and have been playing together all year. The record of the games when this was the format was: All-Stars 13

Defending Champs 8

1 Tie

What do you think?

I think they read Eric McErlain's article which came out two days earlier than their faceoff article.

[schulzte 18]

Imagine if the Wings won the Stanley Cup, and in doing so, was rewarded with hosting the following year's All-Star game at the Joe. The Wings would then play against the 25 best players from the rest of the league, meaning true superstars, not the watered down lineups the East vs. West game produces. The Wings would have 3rd liners playing their guts out in a rare chance at an All-Star game, and the home crowd would be behind them, so the home team would really have incentive to play hard and win for the home fans. I'm telling you, this could be a really great idea! I don't think the All-Stars would win every year.

I think this would be quite a spectacle!

Edited January 14, 2008 by schulzte

[Duck Guy 86]

ESPN Article

Scott Burnside and Damien Cox had an interesting idea about the All-Star game, and I think it would be great. Back in the day, the All Star Game format was that the Stanley Cup Champions would play all the rest of the All-Stars in the league and host the game. So this year the Ducks would host the game and play one unifed team of All-Stars from the rest of the league. Conventional thinking would say the Ducks would get creamed, but it would be an interesting game! And the Ducks would have home ice and have been playing together all year. The record of the games when this was the format was: All-Stars 13

Defending Champs 8

1 Tie

What do you think?

i would like that very much. I always thought that the all star game should be at the stadium of the cup winners of the previous season. Would be a nice treat for the fans who followed there team all the way to the . but thats just me.

[The Noodle 39 14]

Yea i would love to go back to that. Great idea and it would be awesome!!

Oh and the winner of the all star game getting home ice for the finals?? BAH!!!

[Guest DetroitIan]

No way it would be close. The Ducks would get completely annhiliated. There would be no point to even play a game like that.

If anything, it should be the Detroit Red Wings every year(regardless if it's a Cup year or not) against an all-star team.

[akustyk 84]

except for the fact that if it was real competition the Stanley Cup team would smoke

that "Best of the rest" team if it put any effort in such game.

hockey is a team game. where the "team" is most important term. talent alone is

worth nothing if you don't have guys developed chemistry and bought into coach

system. you can take pretty average roster talent-wise and under good coach it

will develop into a real contender who can beat the hell out of just about every

mix of superstars who have no idea how to play team game.

and with Stanley Cup winning team usually boasting good quality roster and

keeping core players who define chemistry and team spirit... no chance in earth

those best of the rest can beat Stanley Cup team other than in skill competition

or shutout

[Bannedforlife 403]

except for the fact that if it was real competition the Stanley Cup team would smoke

that "Best of the rest" team if it put any effort in such game.

hockey is a team game. where the "team" is most important term. talent alone is

worth nothing if you don't have guys developed chemistry and bought into coach

system. you can take pretty average roster talent-wise and under good coach it

will develop into a real contender who can beat the hell out of just about every

mix of superstars who have no idea how to play team game.

and with Stanley Cup winning team usually boasting good quality roster and

keeping core players who define chemistry and team spirit... no chance in earth

those best of the rest can beat Stanley Cup team other than in skill competition

or shutout

Then how do you explain the fact that when the NHL used to do it, the All-Stars won 13 out of 22 times? Sounds like the All-Stars not only have a good chance of winning, but are more actually more than likely to win.

[akustyk 84]

Then how do you explain the fact that when the NHL used to do it, the All-Stars won 13 out of 22 times? Sounds like the All-Stars not only have a good chance of winning, but are more actually more than likely to win.

not necessarily so. if I was the coach of SC team I'd not like my entire

roster to put too much effort into an irrelevant game if I knew there's

more important hockey yet to be played. which is what I wrote right

at the start of previous post.

I'd not mix up the likelihood in this also. probability is a tough *****

and is not to be dealt with such small and flawed samples

[eva unit zero 271]

Then how do you explain the fact that when the NHL used to do it, the All-Stars won 13 out of 22 times? Sounds like the All-Stars not only have a good chance of winning, but are more actually more than likely to win.

The answer lies in the fact that the All-Stars vs Cup champs was played in the original six era; meaning the All-Star team was comprised of players from just five teams. That's an average of four players per team. Assume the bottom two teams put mayb only one or two players on the team each, and you now have five or six players per team for the top three. Not hard to see how chemistry could already exist between such a large piece of a single team.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

sounds like a cool idea, but i also like the idea of stanley cup finals home advantage goes to winner of all star game

I couldn't disagree any more. I think its a joke that the MLB does that and I would never be an advocate for it in the NHL. The All-Star game is such a joke and to let it play a *major* factor in the championship of your league is insane.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25

[toby91_ca 620]

I couldn't disagree any more. I think its a joke that the MLB does that and I would never be an advocate for it in the NHL. The All-Star game is such a joke and to let it play a *major* factor in the championship of your league is insane.

Everyone currently knows the game is a joke and to give the game more meaning and change people's perception that the game is just a joke would be to actually make it mean something, like the winning side getting home ice in the playoffs.

I understand the thought process, but I do not understand why someone would have those thoughts going through their head.

Maybe you couldn't disagree anymore, but I think I can probably disagree with it more than you.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

It's so pathetic how the league is trying to market the game in Atlanta, which is a city that doesn't care about any sport, let alone hockey. Half the people there probably couldn't pick Kovalchuk out of a police lineup.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Everyone currently knows the game is a joke and to give the game more meaning and change people's perception that the game is just a joke would be to actually make it mean something, like the winning side getting home ice in the playoffs.

I understand the thought process, but I do not understand why someone would have those thoughts going through their head.

Maybe you couldn't disagree anymore, but I think I can probably disagree with it more than you.

Agreed, and giving the game more meaning would make for a more entertaining affair. The problem with the home-ice-to-the-winner mindset is you still have teams like the Kings, Capitals and the Lightning with players who don't give a sh*t due to the fact that they now they're not going to the playoffs. So you got guys like Z, Iggy and Luongo working their assess off while Arnott blows his nose the entire game.

That's the flaw in the home-ice advantage-to-the-winner theory.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25

[vangvace 12]

It's so pathetic how the league is trying to market the game in Atlanta, which is a city that doesn't care about any sport, let alone hockey. Half the people there probably couldn't pick Kovalchuk out of a police lineup.

but it is growing and that's what counts. Feel good ATL story

Edit: I would like to see a couple years of Cup Winner vs League. But it would have to be outdoors of course!

The other thing I was thinking about is West finalist vs. East allstars and East Finalist vs. West allstars and make the allstar weekend a three day event.

Also, just for fun games should not be tied into home ice

Edited January 14, 2008 by vangvace

[eva unit zero 271]

Agreed, and giving the game more meaning would make for a more entertaining affair. The problem with the home-ice-to-the-winner mindset is you still have teams like the Kings, Capitals and the Lightning with players who don't give a sh*t due to the fact that they now they're not going to the playoffs. So you got guys like Z, Iggy and Luongo working their assess off while Arnott blows his nose the entire game.

That's the flaw in the home-ice advantage-to-the-winner theory.

The solution would be to actually name the best players to the game rather than represent every team. However, that would have resulted in a Western team dominated by the Wings, as the Wings have six players who deserve to be in the game if rosters are chosen in that manner.

[lets go pavel 2]

ehhh ... i think the game should stay meaningless ... it's a showcase for the league's talent (although it would be better without the one-from-every-team mandate), it's not supposed to be a hard-fought game ...

we have a good chance at the president's trophy and home-ice throughout the playoffs ... if we make it to the finals would we really want to give up home ice because maybe Legace had a bad outing?

moreover, even with home-ice on the line, do we really want our players hitting and playing all-out at an all-start game? how pissed would we be if Hank or Pavel got knocked out for a few months?

in my opinion, it should stay meaningless, and the emphasis should be on promoting the stars and showing off some of their personality ...

[OsGOD 3]

Why does everything need to have a meaning behind it... just let the game be played for enjoyement and screw tying to make it have some ficticious meaning.

I still believe the team which dominates the regular season SHOULD have the ability to win only home games in the Playoffs and still win the stanley cup...

[imisssergei 0]

Agreed, and giving the game more meaning would make for a more entertaining affair. The problem with the home-ice-to-the-winner mindset is you still have teams like the Kings, Capitals and the Lightning with players who don't give a sh*t due to the fact that they now they're not going to the playoffs. So you got guys like Z, Iggy and Luongo working their assess off while Arnott blows his nose the entire game.

That's the flaw in the home-ice advantage-to-the-winner theory.

You are on the right track. But the real problem with having the home ice in the finals determied by the outcome of the all star games is this.

It harms the integrity of the regular season. The president's trophy would be a worthless accomplishment.

[auxlepli 17]

You are on the right track. But the real problem with having the home ice in the finals determied by the outcome of the all star games is this.

It harms the integrity of the regular season. The president's trophy would be a worthless accomplishment.

I agree.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

The solution would be to actually name the best players to the game rather than represent every team. However, that would have resulted in a Western team dominated by the Wings, as the Wings have six players who deserve to be in the game if rosters are chosen in that manner.

That's not what I'm saying at all Eva, so let me explain using a guy like Ovechkin, for example. He is one of the premier scorers in the East and based one scoring he should represent the East. However, the All-Star game wouldn't mean anything to him aside from being competitive seeing as that the Caps are not going to make the playoffs. Again, I'm referring to players on playoff or potentially playoff teams versus ones that know their season is over in early April.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

You are on the right track. But the real problem with having the home ice in the finals determied by the outcome of the all star games is this.

It harms the integrity of the regular season. The president's trophy would be a worthless accomplishment.

You must have not read the entire topic, because below was my initial post:

I couldn't disagree any more. I think its a joke that the MLB does that and I would never be an advocate for it in the NHL. The All-Star game is such a joke and to let it play a *major* factor in the championship of your league is insane.

I am in no way in favor of any All-Star game in any sport determining home advantage.

[stormboy 47]

i think there are a few problems with the cup champs vs. league idea, although, in theory, i like it.

for one, especially under the new cba, it's often hard for teams to retain their core after winning a cup. if a few young guys have big playoffs, they're going to want huge raises which the team probably won't be able to afford since, if they own a stanely cup, chances are they already have some fairly high-priced players. (imagine cleary and flip are both ufa's after this year, and both have amazing playoffs. they demand raises [that they're entitled to] but because we need to keep hank we don't sign them. then the wings of next season are a lot unlike the wings that won the cup.) add on to that the rent-a-player scenarios, and the cup winning team and the team of the next year's allstar game are hardly the same. then dom and chelios retire...you get the point.

secondly, i for one am in favor of the every-team-gets-represented thing. on the one hand, i agree that it sucks for those who are allstar worthy (rafalski, maybe) who get snubbed because their team's already got a bunch of players and every team needs a guy in the game. and while a lot of pheonix fans probably aren't going to tune in just to see ed jovanovski (sp) play, even less are going to watch if they know already that there are NO coyotes playing. with that idea, you'd have several not being represented. that also means that no one team would be able to have more than one guy on the allstar team, since several of the teams are getting snubbed all together. so are you going to pick danny heatley or jason spezza to play in the all star game with dallas drake and matt ellis? 'cause you can only get one. or, put differently, we'd have to chose between sending hank and pavel to play against travis moen, who has all of four points in forty-six games this year.

i think someone mentioned earlier that when this was done, it was when the league had a lot less teams. one the one hand, that meant that the overall talent per player was a lot higher, because you didn't need to populate thirty teams with full rosters. on the other, it meant that every single team got represented with not only their superstars, but some of their role players, too. so sending zetterberg, dats, lids, rafalski, AND flip to play against a team with a lot higher average talent makes more sense than what it would today.

all that being said, it's an entertaining idea.