Last week, the NBA fined the Utah Jazz $500,000 for “conduct detrimental to the league” and the Indiana Pacers $100,000 for violating the league’s Player Participation Policy after both teams altered their lineups, either during or before games, to remove star players.
In a statement accompanying the punishment, Adam Silver declared, “Overt behavior like this that prioritizes draft position over winning undermines the foundation of NBA competition, and added, “we are working with our Competition Committee and Board of Governors to implement further measures to root out this type of conduct.”
During his annual All-Star Weekend press conference, Silver expounded:
“I think we’re coming at it in two ways. One is, again, focusing on the here and now, the behavior we’re seeing from our teams and doing whatever we can to remind them of what their obligation is to the fans and to their partner teams. But number two, as I also reported in that statement, the Competition Committee started earlier this year reexamining the whole approach to how the draft lottery works.
“Ultimately those teams, and just as a reminder that we’re all in this together, that we want to have fair competition, we want to have fair systems and to keep an eye on the fans, most importantly, and their expectation that we’re going to be putting the best product forward.
…
“Ultimately, we need a system to fairly, I think, distribute players. I think it’s in the players’ interest as well as the teams that you have a level of parity around the league. There’s only so many jobs and so many cities. But we’ve got to look at some fresh thinking here. What we’re doing, what we’re seeing right now is not working; there’s no question about it.”
The league is not waiting around to make changes. ESPN stated Thursday that Silver informed teams that tweaks will be in place for next season. Additionally, ESPN stated a series of ideas that have been discussed by the league’s competition committee in late January and the 30 general managers at their meeting on Thursday:
- First-round picks can be protected only top-four or top-14+
- Lottery odds freeze at the trade deadline or a later date
- No longer allowing a team to pick top four in consecutive years and/or after consecutive bottom-three finishes
- Teams can’t pick top-four the year after making conference finals
- Lottery odds allocated based on two-year records
- Lottery extended to include all play-in teams
- Flatten odds for all lottery teams
I continue to be of the opinion, which I realize may be the minority, that tanking is not that big of a deal, and the league is overreacting to a unique confluence of events this season. Yes, the maneuvering has started earlier than usual, but the 2026 draft class projects as an all-timer, and multiple teams have protected picks they’re desperate to keep.
As long as the draft exists — it’s still hard to imagine it being abolished, even though the idea has gained some steam in the media lately — the league cannot eliminate tanking, it can only determine how difficult it is for the worst teams to get the best picks. No one wants to tank, but the draft remains the most reliable way for the majority of teams to acquire top talent, so that’s what they’re going to do.
And as I wrote last week, I don’t think minor tweaks like the ones the leauge is reportedly considering are worthwhile. If anything, the 2019 decision to flatten the lottery odds has exacerbated tanking by creating more variance in the lottery results. The suggested changes would have similar unintended consequences.
With that in mind, here is a rebuttal to each of the potential anti-tanking changes the league is considering.
1. Changing protections on first-round picks
This one feels like a direct response to the Jazz and Washington Wizards having top-eight protected picks and the Pacers’ unique trade with the Los Angeles Clippers, in which they protected their first-round pick 1-4 and 10-30.
Eliminating protections altogether would be an interesting idea — if the pick is gone no matter what, teams would have no incentive to alter their behavior — but it’s hard to see how limiting the way that picks can be protected will limit tanking, except perhaps in some specific cases.
The Jazz and Wizards would still be tanking this season if they had a top-four protected pick. In fact, you could make a case that they likely would have done so even earlier and more aggressively than they did with a top-eight protected pick. Likewise, this rule wouldn’t stop some teams with lottery-protected picks from making the calculation that they would be better off in the lottery than fighting for a first-round exit.
2. Lottery odds freezing at the trade deadline or later in season
I don’t understand this suggestion at all, to be honest.
One of the main complaints about this season is that teams have started tanking earlier than usual. Well, what would freezing the lottery odds at the trade deadline, or March 1, or any point prior to the end of the season do? Incentivize teams to start tanking as early as possible.
If teams messing around with rotations and player availability in February is annoying, just wait until they’re doing it in December. And then what? A bunch of teams play 30 completely meaningless games after the All-Star break? How is that good for the league or fans?
3. No top-four picks in consecutive years and/or after consecutive bottom-three finishes
First of all, this hasn’t been that common of an occurrence since the league flattened the lottery odds in 2019. Since then, only the Houston Rockets (2021-24) and San Antonio Spurs (2023-25) have picked in the top four in consecutive years.
This is also the first suggestion that feels unfair. All drafts are not created equal, there is a massive difference in value between the No. 1 pick and the No. 4 pick and no draft pick is a guaranteed success.
For example, the Atlanta Hawks got the No. 1 pick in the historically weak 2024 Draft and selected Zaccharie Risacher, who appears to be a rotation player in the NBA. If they had won the lottery in 2023 or 2025, they would have selected Victor Wembanyama or Cooper Flagg — two franchise cornerstones. The Hawks were actually trying to win, even when they wound up with the No. 1 pick, but let’s say they were in the middle of a rebuild. Under this rule, they would have been prevented from getting a top-four pick in the historically great 2025 Draft, compounding their misery. Not only did they have the bad luck of being in the top-four of a bad draft, they would have been locked out of the top-four of an excellent draft. Would that have convinced them to try and compete? Or incentivized them to tank for an extra year to get back into the top-four in 2026? The latter seems more likely.
Now, let’s look at the No. 4 picks since the league flattened the lottery odds in 2019:
- 2019: De’Andre Hunter, Cleveland Cavaliers
- 2020: Patrick Williams, Chicago Bulls
- 2021: Scottie Barnes, Toronto Raptors
- 2022: Keegan Murray, Sacramento Kings
- 2023: Amen Thompson, Houston Rockets
- 2024: Stephon Castle, San Antonio Spurs
- 2025: Kon Knueppel, Charlotte Hornets
Some very good players in that group, but likely none who would single-handedly alter the course of a franchise. And in what world should drafting Patrick Williams at No. 4, for example, disqualify you from being in the top-four of the following year’s draft? How does that make any sense? Or, in Silver’s words, ensure the draft would “fairly distribute players”?
Finally, how would the process for kicking a team(s) out of the top-four in the second year actually work? Would the team(s) below them slide into their spot? In that case, teams who otherwise may have been unlikely to get into the top-four could start tanking to be in position to take a disqualified team’s pick.
4. Teams can’t make top-four picks right after making conference finals
This is another one that’s a pretty rare occurance. Since the league flattened the lottery odds, the 2020 Golden State Warriors and 2025 Dallas Mavericks are the only teams to pick in the top-four the year after making the conference finals. It may happen again this year with the Indiana Pacers.
What do all those teams have in common? Something catastrophic happened to their franchise.
- 2020 Warriors: Kevin Durant tore his Achilles in Game 5 of the 2019 Finals and left in free agency, Klay Thompson tore his ACL in Game 6 of the 2019 Finals and missed the entire season and Stephen Curry broke his hand five games into the season and never played again. They went 15-50 and got the No. 2 pick (James Wiseman) in the 2020 Draft.
- 2025 Mavericks: Less than a year after the Mavericks made the Finals, Nico Harrison traded Luka Dončić to the Los Angeles Lakers for Anthony Davis, Max Christie and a first-round pick. Davis immediately suffered a long-term injury, Kyrie Irving tore his ACL and numerous other Mavericks went down during an injury crisis at the end of the season, which led to them falling into the lottery. They miraculously won the lottery and selected Cooper Flagg with the No. 1 pick in the 2025 Draft.
- 2026 Pacers: Tyrese Haliburton tore his Achilles tendon in Game 7 of the 2025 Finals and was ruled out for the entire 2025-26 campaign, Myles Turner left in free agency and the Pacers have been beset by injuries this season. Though not for a lack of effort, they are 15-41, and on pace for a top pick.
This is another suggestion that feels unfair. Teams who make the conference finals aren’t in a position to pick in the top-four of the next year’s draft unless something went horribly wrong. In which case, there’s no reason to double their punishment and create a truly lost season.
5. Lottery odds allocated based on two-year records
This is the system the WNBA has used since 2015, and there’s no question that it has benefitted the worst teams. In fact, since the WNBA implemented this change, there have been five instances of a team winning the No. 1 pick in back-to-back years. (Though it’s worth noting that until last year, there were only four teams in the WNBA lottery.) Three of those teams (Seattle Storm, Las Vegas Aces, New York Liberty) have gone on to win the Finals, while the Indiana Fever made the semifinals last season and the Dallas Wings are set to make their second consecutive top pick later this spring.
If the primary goal is to more fairly distribute the top picks (talent) to teams that have been stuck at the bottom, the two-year aggregate lottery odds system would go a long way toward achieving that.
But would it prevent tanking? In certain cases, yes. Let’s take a team that made the playoffs one season, then got off to a poor start the next season, had a few injuries and was hovering around the Play-In Tournament spots come the All-Star break. Reported team would have less incentive to pack it in and try a one-off tank under this system.
On the other hand, the two-year aggregate lottery odds system could incentivize a multi-year tanking plan when teams know there’s a cant-miss prospect on the horizon. It’s very easy to imagine some teams tanking multiple seasons in a row for a better chance at someone like Wembanyama or Flagg.
The impact that one elite player can have in basketball is unique in team sports, and the draft remains the most reliable way for organizations, especially those in small markets, to acquire that level of talent. Franchises are going to do what it takes to put themselves in position for a top pick in a highly regarded draft, even if it means a multi-year rebuilding project.
6. Lottery extended to include all Play-In teams
This would solve for the issue of teams tanking late in the season to avoid the Play-In Tournament in search of some ping-pong balls. But is that worth adding four more teams into the lottery and further flattening the odds in the process? Or opening up the possibility of a No. 7 seed that won 48 games winding up with a top-four or top-six pick? No.
Plus, how would adding the Play-In Tournament teams to the lottery have any impact whatsoever on what the teams at the bottom of the standings are up to? If this rule was in place this season, the Jazz would still be doing the exact same thing that got them fined $500,000.
7. Flatten odds for all lottery teams
Possibly the worst idea of them all, for two reasons.
First, to the extent that tanking is a crisis at all, the situation was worsened by the league’s initial decision to flatten the lottery odds in 2019, which has made it more difficult for the worst teams to get the top picks, thus forcing many of them into a state of perpetual tanking.
In 2018, the worst team had a 25% chance at winning the lottery. Since 2019, the worst team has had a 14% chance at winning the lottery. Flattening the odds for all lottery teams would mean the worst team has a ~7% chance at winning the lottery — the same as any other non-playoff team.
Many teams have no choice but to rebuild through the draft, and it’s very difficult to do so without getting at least one, if not multiple top lottery picks. Take the Wizards, for example. They haven’t made the playoffs since 2021, but are on pace to finish with one of the five worst records yet again, largely because in the last four drafts, their highest picks have been No. 10, No. 7, No. 2 and No. 6. In a world with completely flat lottery odds, there’s a very good chance their selections would have been even worse, and they’d be in an even deeper hole.
Second, this wouldn’t eliminate tanking, it would only change where it was taking place.
In Silver’s statement regarding the fines for the Jazz and Pacers, he reported that he handed out the punishment because those teams’ behavior “undermines the foundation of NBA competition.” Guess what would be even worse for the foundation of NBA competition? Teams tanking their way out of the playoffs to get into a flattened lottery.
Take the Orlando Magic for example. They’re 29-25 and likely going to make the playoffs, but they’ve been banged-up all season and are probably heading for another first-round exit. If the lottery odds were flat this year, what would be better for their long-term future? Trying to sink into the lottery for a 7% chance at Darryn Peterson or losing in five or six games to the Detroit Pistons or New York Knicks?
Would every borderline playoff team take that approach? No. But some of them definitely would, especially in years with a highly rated draft class.
