NBA’s Crisis After Super Bowl: A Look at Tanking and Season Length
Why does it always seem like the NBA is in a bit of turmoil right after the Super Bowl? Sometimes it’s about load management, other times a player misses the All-Star Game, and this year—it’s tanking. Right now, there’s a significant outcry over teams that seem to intentionally lose games, particularly from fans of the Utah Jazz and Washington Wizards. Some fans are clearly frustrated that their teams, well, aren’t going all out against the best players when it counts. But honestly, I suspect a good number of these fans understand the strategy behind boosting their lottery odds in what’s essentially a lost season.
While the complaints over tanking might seem like just background noise, that doesn’t mean the issue isn’t serious. At present, there are about 9-10 teams basically incentivized to lose their remaining games, and let’s face it—that’s not ideal for the league. The NBA seems eager to tackle the tanking issue, but I’m a bit concerned that their attempts might inadvertently create even bigger problems.
So, how does the NBA plan to tackle tanking next season? Well, according to ESPN’s Shams Charania, former Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski is among those advising Adam Silver on this matter. They’re mulling over a few fixes for tanking:
- First-round draft picks protected only against top 4 or top 14 picks (seems reasonable enough)
- Lottery odds frozen at the trading deadline or a later date (not sure that helps)
- Teams can’t draft if they’ve finished in the top 4 or bottom 3 for consecutive years (that feels a bit too extreme… how could a team avoid being at least somewhat bottom-tier for three years?)
- A team that reaches the conference finals also shouldn’t finish in the top four the following year (that sounds silly)
- Lottery odds based on two years of records (not a popular idea)
- Expanding the lottery to include all play-in teams (this might not go over well)
- Flattening the odds across all lottery teams (I think that could be too much)
Some of these proposals seem sensible, while others? Not so much. The right changes could offer struggling teams a chance to land some rising stars while also encouraging a more competitive mindset. However, I can’t overlook that many of these potential fixes might lead to some unintended consequences and create new PR headaches for the league.
On that note, here are my main thoughts on these anti-tanking proposals:
- Tanking in the NBA likely won’t be as pronounced next year, so the situation will probably self-correct.
- But honestly, none of this really addresses the root of what I see as the NBA’s biggest issue.
Why is tanking such a hot topic right now? It likely has to do with the 2026 NBA Draft, where a single talented player could make a substantial impact. For franchises lacking star power, acquiring a standout player generally comes down to three routes: drafting, trading, or signing through free agency. Since Kawhi Leonard moved to the Clippers back in 2019, we haven’t seen any major stars switch teams in free agency, really limiting that avenue. Trading for a star can be a real asset drain, making the drafting of young talent a preferred route. It allows teams to manage costs while fostering a strong bond with fans as they watch prospects develop over the years.
For struggling teams, tanking might just be the most strategic decision. It’s hard to argue against it as an aspect of the NBA lifecycle. However, teams like the Jazz and Wizards seem to be taking a different route, opting to build around players like Anthony Davis and Trae Young instead of tanking. Teams are aware that they shouldn’t plan to tank indefinitely. For example, a rule limiting teams from moving up in the lottery three times in four years could be a practical change. In that case, the Spurs wouldn’t have had the opportunity to draft another top talent after already acquiring Victor Wembanyama and Stephon Castle.
Implementing new regulations now could be detrimental for teams that made rebuilding decisions before the trade deadline. Take the Memphis Grizzlies and Chicago Bulls—they’ve been hesitant to tank, instead aiming for playoff contention. This approach has led to mixed results. The Bulls finally opted to let go of some key players, while the Grizzlies faced their own struggles. If the NBA decides to enforce anti-tank measures, it might unfairly penalize teams that followed a more conventional rebuilding path, rather than addressing the core issues with tanking.
Tanking Isn’t the NBA’s Core Issue: Game Count
Honestly, many of the league’s challenges could be mitigated by simply reducing the number of games played. An 82-game season feels excessive. Modern games are more physically demanding than ever, which places undue stress on players during the regular season and playoffs.
In my view, reducing the calendar to around 60 or 65 games could alleviate numerous issues. Load management would become less necessary with a more spaced-out schedule. Tanking would also become less relevant since there’d just be fewer games to contend with. After about 60 games, playoff rankings generally stabilize, making each game feel more critical—something the NBA needs to emphasize.
A 20-game reduction would certainly affect both team owners and players financially, but the potential long-term gains could far outweigh the short-term losses. Sometimes you have to take a step back to make progress. That should be the essence of the NBA’s evaluation process moving forward.
It’s unfortunate the league faces criticism over trivial matters, like a lackluster dunk contest, while other major events, like a poorly contested Super Bowl, escape the same scrutiny. The last NBA Finals showcased intense competition, a real underdog story featuring the Indiana Pacers, and stars like Tyrese Haliburton battling through injuries for a championship title.
The Finals had grit, excitement, and competitive spirit—contrasting sharply with the Super Bowl’s lack of engagement. So, why do we end up discussing tanking with folks who don’t follow teams like the Jazz or Wizards?
Overall, the NBA has diluted the significance of each game simply by having too many of them. This problem underpins many of the league’s struggles. Although I support reasonable tanking regulations, I’m not keen on radical changes. If the NBA wishes to tackle its deeper issues, starting with a shorter season might just be the way to go.
