The reason the NBA Slam Dunk Contest so often fails to meet expectations is because expectations for it are so high. And expectations are high because of years like 2016, when Aaron Gordon and Zach LaVine had a battle for the ages, one that we could have watched for three hours if they had the legs for it. The dunkers brought legitimate shock to viewers, and that fueled the audience into relishing every minute.
The NBA Slam Dunk Contest can be fun again with these 3 changes
We saw in 2016 that the Dunk Contest can still be great. How do we make that happen every year?
Photo by Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images
It also fueled us into expecting more, especially since Gordon participated again this year. He didn’t live up to our memory of 2016. He didn’t really live up to anything, though the idea behind the drone dunk was inventive. (It would have been stronger if he had the capacity to continue to control the drone through the dunk, including its release of the ball. And also, if he would have made the dunk on the first try.)
The 2016 dunk was magical. We expected the same in 2017. We didn’t get it.
The dunks we saw from champ Glenn Robinson III and Derrick Jones, Jr. were good — GR3’s clincher in the final round was really impressive — but there is little new in dunking. We’ve seen these dunks before.
There are just subtle tweaks or combinations, like how GR3’s final dunk was one John Wall had done before, just with more people to leap over. This was partly true in 2016 as well: LaVine nor Gordon invented new ways to dunk a basketball. They just improved existing dunks by adding a twist or ramping up the height on them.
So what do we do? How do we make sure the Dunk Contest is more like 2016 than 2017?
1. More dunks, less waiting.
The Dunk Contest is not a slow-paced affair solely for commercial purposes. It’s just slow, period. The timer doesn’t work — the NBA tried that; it just becomes a crutch. I’m partial to Ricky O’Donnell’s X-Games style idea: Just open it up for 30 minutes, and let the guys dunk at will (which necessitates a reduction, but not elimination, of props).
Even if you don’t go that far, the whole escapade needs to be tightened time-wise. We really should never go 10 minutes between dunks in the Dunk Contest, even if that means the dunks are a little less involved.
2. More competitors, fewer attempts.
Right now, four competitors each get two dunks in the opening round. The two best dunkers from that round each get two dunks in the finals. Creating four eye-popping dunks seems like a lot to ask three decades into the Dunk Contest, especially for players who participate in multiple years. (Aaron Gordon is really supposed to create eight crazy dunks over two years?)
I’d propose bringing eight competitors who each get one dunk in the first round. The top four scores earn entry to the second round, where they each get one more dunk. In the finals, each competitor gets one final dunk to impress the judges. Best dunk in the final round wins.
You double the competitors, but you’re only increasing the total dunk count from 12 to 14, so the thing shouldn’t get much longer (if at all). You’re also reducing the number of dunks each competitor has to prepare, and they should keep fresher legs with fewer dunks early on. Finally, everyone will bring the best from the start because you face elimination with every single dunk.
These competitors don’t need to be stars. Gordon and LaVine weren’t exactly stars in 2016 — they were known dunkers, but not All-Stars or anything. Keep trawling the league for electric dunkers like GR3 and Jones Jr. You can find eight of them.
3. No more averages.
Right now, you don’t win the Dunk Contest on the strength of your best dunk. You win based on the average score of your two dunks in the final round. Is this what we should be judging? Should a perfect 50 paired with a less-amazing 45 really lose to someone who pulls off two 48s in the final round? No! That perfect 50 was the best dunk according to the judges, so that should win the Dunk Contest.
The problem, of course, is that judges hand out 50s like candy. This is where you go to a dunk-off: rapid fire, no-prop dunks until a winner is crowned, similar to the LaVine-Gordon finish in ‘16.
Alternatively, in the final round, instead of giving individual scores, the judging panel could watch each dunk and then vote on a winner. This would allow judges to grade dunks relative to the other dunks on display. Since we have five judges, we wouldn’t have any ties. (We would also have potentially more controversy, which is nice.)
See More:
