The practice of intentionally losing games within the National Basketball Association has consistently presented a challenge for the organization. Recently, the league has distanced itself from this behavior, pledging to implement structural adjustments.
Currently, three potential schemes have been revealed.
Recommendation 1: Expanding the Lottery to Include 18 Teams
As reported by ESPN’s Shams Charania, the initial suggestion involves 18 franchises—comprising the ten lowest-ranked teams that do not advance to the play-in tournament, alongside the eight teams that do qualify for the play-in—all participating in the NBA draft lottery. ESPN states:
“The ten teams with the poorest records would each possess an 8% probability of improving their position in the lottery, while the remaining 20% of the probabilities would be allocated among the eight play-in teams, ordered from the 11th to the 18th position.
“Under this system, every one of the 18 selections would be determined through the lottery process.”
Initial Impression: This concept primarily represents an enlarged lottery system, excluding only those teams that secure a direct playoff berth by finishing within the top six seeds.
Considered on its own, this notion isn’t particularly problematic. The genuinely strong or top-tier teams remain excluded, and the regulations would be straightforward for supporters to comprehend, unlike what might occur with the subsequent two propositions.
Recommendation 2: The Lottery Involving 22 Teams
For the second proposition, ESPN reports that a total of 22 teams—specifically the 10 lowest-ranked teams not reaching the play-in tournament, the eight teams that do participate in the play-in, and the four postseason teams eliminated in the initial round—would all become part of the NBA draft lottery.
These 22 teams would be evaluated based on their aggregate performance over two consecutive seasons (the preceding season and the current one), rather than the usual single-season record.
Under this suggestion, ESPN indicates that “every team would be required to achieve a baseline number of victories in each season, aiming to reduce the incentive to deliberately lose every game.”
As an illustration: If the lowest threshold for a single season was set at 20 victories, a team falling below that win count would nonetheless be considered 20-62 for lottery calculation purposes. Furthermore, if a team accumulated 40 wins in one season and 20 in the next, their average win count for the lottery would be 30.
ESPN notes: “Within this framework, the initial four positions would be determined by the lottery, mirroring the present practice.”
Adam Silver is set on fixing the league’s tanking issue. (Photo by Soeren Stache/picture alliance via Getty Images)
(picture alliance via Getty Images)
Initial Impression: Herein lies a potential pitfall where the league might encounter unforeseen repercussions by drawing in teams that have genuinely reached the playoffs.
Consider a scenario where the Oklahoma City Thunder are eliminated in the initial playoff round, perhaps due to player injuries, and subsequently become eligible for the lottery. This would grant what is arguably the NBA’s most talent-rich squad a chance at acquiring a prospective cornerstone player.
How would such an outcome contribute to fostering competitive equality or equilibrium? While it’s a remote possibility statistically, its potential existence means a new, unnecessary avenue is presented.
Moreover, this approach is far from appealing to supporters, merely reinforcing the perception that the NBA operates like a legal entity. The terminology and the associated regulations within this proposition would present considerable challenges for fans to interpret annually, given the necessity of incorporating previous seasons into the comprehensive calculation.
Recommendation 3: The Dual-Phase Lottery
The third proposition essentially introduces a two-stage lottery, where the identical 18 teams mentioned in the initial suggestion (the 10 lowest-ranked teams not reaching the play-in and the eight participating play-in teams) would be included in the drawing. ESPN states:
“The five franchises possessing the poorest records would all then share identical chances, with probabilities diminishing thereafter, and a lottery draw would occur for each of the initial five selections in the draft.
“Once those five picks are determined, an additional lottery draw would be conducted for the remaining 13 teams.”
Under this proposition, to safeguard against a struggling team dropping too significantly in the draft order: Should any of the five teams with the worst records fail to secure a top-five position in the initial lottery, their lowest possible outcome in the subsequent lottery drawing would be the 10th spot.
Initial Impression: It appears illogical that a team holding the absolute worst record could, in practice, pick as low as 10th. The league has consistently emphasized competitive balance for years and has recently lauded the diverse array of recent champions.
This creates a pathway for underperforming teams to remain so, even if their conduct in this procedure is above board and not outright tanking. How can the association champion competitive equilibrium while simultaneously implementing measures that might subtly diminish its effect?
Concluding Reflections
It’s undeniable. Regardless of the circumstances, the NBA is committed to enacting its regulations against intentional losing, even if the issue is significantly exaggerated and largely stems from the recent occurrence of three exceptionally talented draft classes—in 2023, 2025, and the forthcoming 2026—each featuring players capable of transforming a franchise.
No deliberate losing was observed in 2024, nor is it anticipated that teams will aggressively pursue a premier draft selection in 2027.
Given the fluctuating quality of available talent, which varies annually, this situation appears to be largely inconsequential. Nevertheless, for the NBA, this is far from true.
If compelled to make a selection, my personal preference would lean towards Recommendation 1.
This option most closely aligns with the existing framework and avoids introducing the possibility of strong teams entering the lottery, which appears to be a misguided concept, considering the potential ramifications of perhaps prolonging one team’s championship contention without even establishing it for others.
The outcome of this matter, decided by the league and its 30 franchise owners, will become clear following their meeting in May.
