Adam Silver tends to react promptly to public feedback. Sometimes, this is effective. The 2026 NBA All-Star Game turned out to be engaging and competitive, featuring shorter games and a USA vs. World matchup, a refreshing change from previous years of dull, uncompetitive play. However, the 65-game rule for postseason eligibility is more complex. While some stars seem to be playing more to meet this requirement, it also unfairly hampers players like Cade Cunningham, who was denied a spot on the All-NBA first team this season due to a serious injury late in the year.
Currently, the NBA faces a significant issue with tanking, and Silver is prepared to tackle it head-on. Earlier this week, he boldly stated, “We’re going to fix this. We’re going to shut it down completely.” He promised that next season’s incentives regarding tanking and the lottery will undergo major changes.
This past Friday morning, the NBA withdrew three proposed measures aimed at curbing tanking. New voting on potential changes is set for May, and alterations are expected to take effect for the 2027 NBA Draft. The league is currently considering three plans:
1. Introduce 18 teams in the draft lottery (seeds 7-15 from each conference) – The odds would be equalized, with the 10 worst teams each having an 8% chance, and the other 20% odds distributed among seeds 11 to 18, allowing for a lottery covering all 18 picks.
2. Use records from the last two years for 22 teams (seeds 7-15 and four first-round playoff exits) – Teams would be required to achieve a minimum of 25 wins. If they fall short, additional slots would be added until they meet that floor. The current lottery process for the top four finishes would remain the same.
3. An 18-team “5 x 5” lottery – The five worst teams would have equal chances for the top pick, with a lottery deciding picks 1-5. The bottom five would require a minimum of 10 wins, with others sorted through a separate lottery.
As I mentioned previously about the NBA’s approach to tanking, there’s a real risk of creating larger issues while trying to solve this one. Sure, tanking is a problem, but it’s not the biggest one facing the league. The focus should also be on the length of the season, gameplay pace, and the rules heavily favoring offenses. All these suggested changes could unintentionally exacerbate the existing tanking issue.
There are plenty of issues at play. For starters, it seems like the wrong teams might be penalized here. The “tanking crisis” can often be linked to teams like the Utah Jazz and Washington Wizards, who’ve strategically rested players to avoid winning and maximize their chances in the lottery. With recent trades, the Jazz and Wizards might become competitive again. Yet, teams like the Memphis Grizzlies and Chicago Bulls, who have resisted tanking efforts, could find themselves unfairly impacted by new rules as they explore rebuilding strategies after years of trying to compete.
Many draft picks have already been traded under the current system, and depending on the new rules, their value could shift dramatically.
Imagine the Portland Trail Blazers thinking they could get a top pick from the Milwaukee Bucks after trading away their franchise player, Damian Lillard. With the potential for a more open lottery, playoff teams could also enter the fray, greatly diminishing the odds of that pick being fruitful.
Speaking of trades, one thing the NBA excels at, compared to other leagues, is keeping fans engaged through trade rumors and offseason actions. This speculation is crucial for maintaining interest among fans, and these trades happen much more frequently in the NBA than in leagues like the NFL or MLB. Implementing any anti-tanking measures could stifle this essential trade chatter, making it less exciting. Star trades are beneficial for the league, so would Silver really want a situation where only role players are moved at the deadline?
Let’s examine the proposed changes one by one.
1. The 18-team lottery (seeds 7-15) – Odds are equalized with bottom 10 teams getting an 8% chance each; remaining odds go from 11 to 18 during the lottery for 18 picks.
Last year, we saw the Dallas Mavericks rise from 11 to 1 in the draft lottery. The San Antonio Spurs also gained a lot after a season-ending injury to Victor Wembanyama. But did successful teams fix their tanking issues? It looks like tanking may actually be worse right now. This proposal seems likely to let better teams jump up more often, while bad teams remain stuck, risking less opportunity for them to improve, especially given the difficulty of attracting quality free agents under current conditions.
2. A draw for 22 teams using past two years’ records – Teams must reach a minimum of 25 wins or face diminishing lottery odds.
Once a team hits 25 wins, it’s inevitable they’ll start resting key players, right? It’s a flawed strategy.
3. An 18-team “5 x 5” lottery – The bottom five teams would share equal odds for the top pick leading to a separate lottery for those outside this group.
This could lead to intense competition for just five slots. If there are eight teams vying for them, we may end up witnessing some pretty horrible basketball.
Another overarching thought:
Tanking is part of the NBA’s lifecycle and only requires minor adjustments
The Detroit Pistons had woeful seasons recently, but they now stand as a top Eastern Conference team, largely due to effective drafting. The Phoenix Suns reached the 2021 NBA Finals after selecting first overall in 2018, although they didn’t choose the most suitable player in Deandre Ayton. Meanwhile, the Houston Rockets are rebuilding their young core after struggling since the James Harden trade. The Spurs have recently transformed their fortunes thanks to Victor Wembanyama and favorable lottery results.
Tanking for a few seasons isn’t inherently bad — it becomes problematic when teams continue the practice year after year. The most reasonable approach might just be to limit how many top five picks a team can have every few years.
However, my proposed strategies might also introduce some unexpected outcomes. For instance, while the Wizards secured a high draft spot in 2024, a poor performance last year reset their chances. Further complicating matters, if they falter again, their hope of better picks vanishes.
Ultimately, addressing tanking will always come with its own set of challenges. The league must remember to focus on what truly matters — empowering fans of struggling teams with hope. The draft remains a vital mechanism for this, having previously helped rebuild some of the league’s worst teams rather swiftly.
As for a wild fix, imagine if the league handpicked players for each draft slot. The NBA’s goal is storytelling, after all. What if the Grizzlies had won the 2003 lottery instead of the Cavs? Wouldn’t the narrative have changed dramatically? Likewise, the story of Victor Wembanyama with the Spurs feels fitting given their history. If the Hornets had taken him instead, would the story hold the same weight? I realize it sounds outlandish, but perhaps the league may push for a more favorable outcome for certain teams based on their reputation for fair play.
The discussions surrounding tanking have intensified, especially leading into the 2025 and 2026 drafts. Rushing to implement changes without fully considering their impact on the league could prove to be shortsighted.
I genuinely believe that employing any of these three anti-tanking measures could worsen the situation. It feels like Silver is reacting hastily to complaints from fans who might not even follow teams like the Jazz or Wizards. He would benefit from taking a step back to analyze the matter, especially looking ahead to a potentially weaker draft class in 2027. Making hurried decisions rarely yields good results, and the NBA’s current approach to a complex issue may lead them toward a significant misstep.
