Do you guys think there should be a limit on player to an All-Star game from 1 team?Example. Recent years from Pistons...Billups, Hamilton, Wallace, & Wallace. I think there should be a two person limit from each team. Like this year the Suns have Nash, Marion, and Amare. It seems a little unfair. Its really not a big deal. But it would give better chances. I think if this rule was in effect. There would be a 100% chance Carmello would have made the All-Star game
if its not really a big deal, why bring it up? but to answer your question, I'm going to say NO.last year all 4 pistons deserved to make that team(I think Tayshaun should have went to complete the set, but hey, he'll get his chances), and this year all 3 suns deserve to make this team. But Melo does deserve to make the team this year. as does the most explosive fastbreaking 3 in the Suns led by the double reigning MVP, and the best backcourt in the league in Rip and Chauncey. along with JKidd-VC.
Last year it was marginal whether Rip and Rasheeed deserved to make the team. I think that team success should really be a tie breaker, not a huge factor.
Yeah they shouldn't. It'll just leave out another great player on the team. Doesn't matter if they are in the same team, they're still great players.
That doesn't make much sense. If the players deserve it, they shouldn't get held out because of some "limit". That doesn't make much sense. They are there for a reason> Nash, Amare, and Marion all deserve it.
I would sure hate to see the 1985 Boston Celtics reaction. Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Dennis Johnson, and Danny Ainge.
A better rule would be a rule that requires the player to have played at least 70-75% of his team's games or more
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Feb 2 2007, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A better rule would be a rule that requires the player to have played at least 70-75% of his team's games or more </div>Yeah that would be a better rule. Then people such as Shaq can't get in when they haven't even played 10 games.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Feb 2 2007, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A better rule would be a rule that requires the player to have played at least 70-75% of his team's games or more </div>Melo wouldn't make it then... But I have no other problems with that rule.
I think that is a stupid rule I mean if you have good enough talent from a team then why shouldn't they make it just because they are all on the same team?
It would help sometimes for exampleetroit - 2006 - Billups, Hamilton, Wallace, Wallace - they were a great team but they didn't deserve to be all starsMiami - 2007 - Wade, Shaq - no question Wade deserves it but Shaq? are you kidding?Houson -2004-05 - McGrady, Yao - once again, McGrady deserved it but Yao didn'tBut otherwise the rule would be a total disaster
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SunnyD @ Feb 2 2007, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Melo wouldn't make it then... But I have no other problems with that rule.</div>It would make players think even more before they punch somebody that they won't get in the all star game possibly if the suspension is long
Instead of limiting the number of players one team can have I would increase the all star roster size from 12 to 15. in the west you see guys like Marcus Camby, Josh Howard, Elton Brand and Zach Randolph being left off despite being worthy of being placed on the roster because of how deep the forward position is. Even if it did nothing else it would counter balance the stupidity of the fan vote.
If there was a one person a team limit, you'd probably see the Rosters composed of atleast 1 player from each team. One player, who probably didn't deserve it anyways.
