The practice of “tanking” – intentionally losing games to improve draft position – has grow a significant talking point throughout the 2026 NBA season, dominating sports news and social media conversations. Several teams, including the Kings, Jazz, Wizards, Pacers, and Nets, have struggled throughout the regular season, leading to frustration among fans and, notably, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. Now, the league appears poised to address this controversial strategy, with a trio of proposals recently sent to the Board of Governors for consideration.
Here’s a breakdown of the three proposals the NBA is evaluating to combat tanking, a practice that threatens the competitive integrity of the league.
Three Proposals to Address NBA Tanking
The NBA is taking decisive steps to eliminate intentional losing in the coming seasons, crafting three proposals aimed at removing this polarizing practice from the game. On March 25, the league presented these “comprehensive” anti-tanking concepts to the Board of Governors, with a formal vote scheduled for May, according to ESPN’s Shams Charania.
Proposal 1: Expanding the Lottery
The first option proposes expanding the draft lottery to include four additional teams – the teams finishing in the 7th and 8th positions in each conference. This would give a total of 18 teams a chance at landing the coveted No. 1 overall pick. According to Charania, the draft odds would be flattened, giving the 10 worst teams in the league an equal 8% chance of securing the top pick. The remaining 20% would be distributed in descending order, from the 11th worst team to the 18th worst. A lottery would then determine the order of the 18 selections.
This proposal aims to level the playing field for teams in the lottery, reducing the incentive to bottom out. The idea is to eliminate the significant difference in odds between having the worst record and the tenth-worst record. However, some analysts suggest this could lead teams to settle for mediocrity rather than aggressively pursuing playoff contention as a lower seed. It could also potentially limit the influx of top-tier talent to struggling franchises, prolonging their rebuilding processes.
Proposal 2: Two-Year Weighted Lottery with Victory Minimums
The second proposal expands lottery eligibility to 22 teams: the seven non-playoff teams from each conference, the 7th and 8th seeds from each conference, and the four teams eliminated in the first round of the playoffs in each conference. Draft probabilities would be based on teams’ performance over the previous two seasons, mirroring the current WNBA Draft Lottery system.
Crucially, this proposal also introduces a minimum victory threshold for lottery participation – for example, 25 wins. Teams failing to reach this mark would be assigned that minimum number for lottery calculations. The lottery would then determine only the top four picks, as it currently does.
Proposal 3: The “5×5” Lottery
The third and final proposal, similar to the first, would also involve 18 teams. This system utilizes a “5×5” lottery, meaning the five teams with the worst records in the league would have equal odds of winning the top pick.
The lottery would determine the order of the first five selections, with the five worst teams guaranteed to land no lower than the 10th pick. The remaining teams outside the top five would be ordered separately to determine their positions within the top 10.
What is Tanking in the NBA?
“Tanking” refers to the deliberate act of losing games in the NBA. It’s not about players intentionally making mistakes on the court, but rather about team management constructing rosters lacking sufficient talent with the explicit goal of securing a high draft pick. The logic is that a higher pick increases the chances of acquiring a potential franchise-altering player, accelerating the rebuilding process.
Current Rules Regarding Tanking
Tanking, whereas widely discussed, isn’t entirely unregulated. The league has levied penalties against teams found to be “prioritizing draft position over winning” and “undermining the principle of competition in the NBA,” according to Commissioner Silver. In February, the Indiana Pacers and Utah Jazz were fined $100,000 and $500,000 respectively for violating league rules related to competitive integrity. These fines, however, have done little to deter the practice, prompting the current wave of proposed changes.
The NBA’s ongoing struggle with tanking highlights a fundamental tension within the league: the desire to maintain competitive balance while allowing teams the opportunity to rebuild. These proposed changes represent a significant attempt to address this challenge, but their ultimate impact remains to be seen. The May vote by the Board of Governors will determine whether the NBA takes a dramatic step towards discouraging intentional losing and fostering a more competitive landscape.
The next key date to watch is May, when the Board of Governors will vote on these proposals. The outcome will significantly shape the future of draft strategy and competitive balance in the NBA. Stay tuned to Archysport for further updates as this story develops.
