NBA Teams Looking Into New Ways To Prevent Teams From Tanking

[CFAN38]

https://x.com/CarmichaelDave/status/2022179732209684774



I really like this guys idea, I know it will never happen but to paraphrase

Create an Eastern, Western, and "Leastern" conferneces

The "Leastern is not playoff eligible but players a normal NBA schedule.

At the end of the season the  top teams in the leastern conference get promoted to the Eastern or Western and earn the top picks in the draft.

The worst East/West teams get relegated.

 

[Roy H.]

Yeah, relegation will never happen in major American sports.  It would solve tanking, though, in theory.

[wdleehi]

To much money lost by owner to ever do relegation.   


They want to reduce tanking, if a team is in the high lottery more then 2 straight years, they start getting a reduced amount of the shared revenue (but this does not effect the the players salary) every extra year they are there.

So the players on the team still get their money, the team and owner gets a reduced amount.  (in fact, they can connect that reduction percentage to what the GM makes as well)

[Kernewek]

They want to reduce tanking, if a team is in the high lottery more then 2 straight years, they start getting a reduced amount of the shared revenue (but this does not effect the the players salary) every extra year they are there.

So the players on the team still get their money, the team and owner gets a reduced amount.  (in fact, they can connect that reduction percentage to what the GM makes as well)

How do you differentiate a team that is tanking from a bad team?

And who is going to take the GM gig to 'right the ship' if they could make more money with a better-performing franchise?

[wdleehi]

They want to reduce tanking, if a team is in the high lottery more then 2 straight years, they start getting a reduced amount of the shared revenue (but this does not effect the the players salary) every extra year they are there.

So the players on the team still get their money, the team and owner gets a reduced amount.  (in fact, they can connect that reduction percentage to what the GM makes as well)

How do you differentiate a team that is tanking from a bad team?

And who is going to take the GM gig to 'right the ship' if they could make more money with a better-performing franchise?

You don't.   Not every team that is out of the playoffs are being punished.   But lets say you are a team that has had top 5 or 6 lotto odds for two plus years, the team falls into this.   (it doesn't hurt teams that have bad lotto odds and happen to win the lotto)


I am sure there will be exception made in case of major injuries or such.   


But it will force teams to try and make progress.   

[Donoghus]

Maybe a good & less drastic start would be going back to a non-weighted lottery for the non-playoff teams.  It won't end all tanking but might be a step in the right direction.  Sure, a team might pull an 90s ORL but I have to imagine that scenario is better than the current situation of blatant tanking for higher percentages.

[Celtics2021]

Maybe a good & less drastic start would be going back to a non-weighted lottery for the non-playoff teams.  It won't end all tanking but might be a step in the right direction.  Sure, a team might pull an 90s ORL but I have to imagine that scenario is better than the current situation of blatant tanking for higher percentages.

Tough call.  If I am the 8-seed and have 10% chance of beating the 1-seed or a 20% chance of a top 3 pick, won?t I just tank the play-in games for that top 3 pick?

[Donoghus]

Maybe a good & less drastic start would be going back to a non-weighted lottery for the non-playoff teams.  It won't end all tanking but might be a step in the right direction.  Sure, a team might pull an 90s ORL but I have to imagine that scenario is better than the current situation of blatant tanking for higher percentages.

Tough call.  If I am the 8-seed and have 10% chance of beating the 1-seed or a 20% chance of a top 3 pick, won?t I just tank the play-in games for that top 3 pick?

You probably will but are you benching your top players in the 4th quarter of early February regular season games in that scenario?

[wdleehi]

Maybe a good & less drastic start would be going back to a non-weighted lottery for the non-playoff teams.  It won't end all tanking but might be a step in the right direction.  Sure, a team might pull an 90s ORL but I have to imagine that scenario is better than the current situation of blatant tanking for higher percentages.

Tough call.  If I am the 8-seed and have 10% chance of beating the 1-seed or a 20% chance of a top 3 pick, won?t I just tank the play-in games for that top 3 pick?

Don't include play-in teams.

[Celtics2021]

Maybe a good & less drastic start would be going back to a non-weighted lottery for the non-playoff teams.  It won't end all tanking but might be a step in the right direction.  Sure, a team might pull an 90s ORL but I have to imagine that scenario is better than the current situation of blatant tanking for higher percentages.

Tough call.  If I am the 8-seed and have 10% chance of beating the 1-seed or a 20% chance of a top 3 pick, won?t I just tank the play-in games for that top 3 pick?

Don't include play-in teams.

Then you just might as well kill the play-in as everyone will be losing to avoid it.  And for that matter they will avoid being the 8th seed too.

[wdleehi]

Maybe a good & less drastic start would be going back to a non-weighted lottery for the non-playoff teams.  It won't end all tanking but might be a step in the right direction.  Sure, a team might pull an 90s ORL but I have to imagine that scenario is better than the current situation of blatant tanking for higher percentages.

Tough call.  If I am the 8-seed and have 10% chance of beating the 1-seed or a 20% chance of a top 3 pick, won?t I just tank the play-in games for that top 3 pick?

Don't include play-in teams.

Then you just might as well kill the play-in as everyone will be losing to avoid it.  And for that matter they will avoid being the 8th seed too.

Maybe, but the teams will play harder during the play-in game when there are now more eyes on it.   

[CFAN38]

Yeah, relegation will never happen in major American sports.  It would solve tanking, though, in theory.

I agree that the traditional soccer relegation will never happen but this idea where one conference is not playoff eligible is at least interesting. Schedule stays the same, profit sharing stays the same, the only real negative is teams start the season knowing playoffs are not an option. Never going to happen but its at least an interesting thought exercise that really could work if implemented.

[President Red]

Maybe a good & less drastic start would be going back to a non-weighted lottery for the non-playoff teams.  It won't end all tanking but might be a step in the right direction.  Sure, a team might pull an 90s ORL but I have to imagine that scenario is better than the current situation of blatant tanking for higher percentages.

Many people dislike this idea, but I always have felt that the lottery should be open to all the teams in the league, and should apply to every pick in the first round (at least).  Weight it such that the top teams have only a minimal chance of getting a high pick, but give them an actual shot.

That would reduce the urge to tank, though it wouldn't eliminate it completely.  It also wouldn't penalize teams significantly for overachieving.  In addition. it would address a problem with the salary cap structure.  For example, I could imagine a team good enough to have one of the top records in the league a year after winning a championship, but then that team is forced to divest itself of good players due to salary cap/apron restrictions.  The team that had the great record is gone, and the team that remains had no shot at getting one of the allegedly top players in the draft to help it rebuild.

[Kernewek]

They want to reduce tanking, if a team is in the high lottery more then 2 straight years, they start getting a reduced amount of the shared revenue (but this does not effect the the players salary) every extra year they are there.

So the players on the team still get their money, the team and owner gets a reduced amount.  (in fact, they can connect that reduction percentage to what the GM makes as well)

How do you differentiate a team that is tanking from a bad team?

And who is going to take the GM gig to 'right the ship' if they could make more money with a better-performing franchise?

You don't.   Not every team that is out of the playoffs are being punished.   But lets say you are a team that has had top 5 or 6 lotto odds for two plus years, the team falls into this.   (it doesn't hurt teams that have bad lotto odds and happen to win the lotto)


I am sure there will be exception made in case of major injuries or such.   


But it will force teams to try and make progress.

Sure, but some of those teams will inevitably be closer to the Charlotte Bobcats than the Hinkie Sixers.
I am not sure there's much appetite around the league - fans, front offices or players - for punishing the former to fix the latter, so you need some meaningful test to differentiate them.

[Donoghus]

We have an update per Shams:

Some good stuff bolded as well.

Sources: NBA eyes new anti-tanking proposal for draft lottery

Shams Charania
Apr 28, 2026, 03:09 PM ET

The NBA has disclosed to its 30 general managers a new anti-tanking, draft reform termed the "3-2-1 lottery" that includes expanding the lottery to 16 teams, flattened odds and a relegation zone where the bottom three teams will be penalized with fewer lottery balls for the No. 1 pick, starting with the 2027 draft, sources told ESPN on Tuesday.

The league office has held multiple critical meetings with its board of governors, competition committee and 30 general managers over the last few weeks to narrow toward this new singular proposal ahead of the owners' May 28 vote, sources said. There could be minor modifications to the proposal, but the key points of the framework have a majority of the support from teams, according to those sources.


The "3-2-1 lottery" proposal, named to represent the number of lottery balls per team, would expand the lottery from 14 to 16 teams. Teams that do not qualify for the playoffs or play-in tournament but stay out of the relegation zone (spots four through 10) would receive three lottery balls each. Teams with a bottom-three record -- the relegation area -- would have just two lottery balls but have a floor of the 12th pick while the rest of the 13 lottery teams could fall as far as the 16th pick.

The 9th and 10th play-in seeds in each conference receive two lottery balls each while the losers of the 7-8 play-in games receive one lottery ball each.

In addition, no team would be able to win the top pick in consecutive years or be able to win three consecutive top-five picks. Teams also would not be able to protect picks in the 12 to 15 slots going forward.

The proposal includes a sunset provision so that the new system would expire following the 2029 draft, and allow the board of governors to continue the system or transition to a new one. The NBA's current collective bargaining agreement runs through the 2029-2030 season.

The league would also have expanded disciplinary authority to regulate tanking and have the option to reduce teams' lottery odds and/or modify teams' draft positions under the proposal.

All of the involved parties have brainstormed and developed several concepts over the last few months before finding this new, 16-team reform that high-ranking officials across the NBA believe will de-incentivize losing while drawing lottery balls for all 16 qualifying teams. It also incentivizes winning, particularly during the second half of the season, as the teams ranked near the bottom three would want to get out of the relegation zone while teams above them work for victories to stay out of the relegation zone.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver made it clear in March that fixing tanking is his top priority and that there will be fundamental changes to the league's draft system to try to prevent it from happening moving forward. The tanking issue escalated this season because of the loaded 2026 draft class and because, as Silver pointed out, the incentives in place push teams to do whatever they can to maximize their chances of getting lucky in the NBA's draft lottery each spring.

"I do think ultimately this is a decision that needs to be made at the ownership level," Silver said following a two-day NBA board of governors meeting in March. "It has business implications, has basketball implications, has integrity implications for the league.

"So, it's one that we take very seriously, and we are going to fix it. Full stop."