In recent meetings with all 30 general managers, Adam Silver acknowledged that tanking has become “worse this year than in recent memory” and stressed that competitive integrity is at risk. The commissioner emphasised that the league will introduce rule changes specifically designed to reduce the incentive for teams to lose intentionally to improve draft odds.
Silver had already hinted at a more aggressive stance during NBA All-Star weekend, when he said he was prepared to explore “every possible remedy” to curb suspicions of manipulated line‑ups and strategic losses by teams drifting out of the playoff picture. Within the league office, there is a growing feeling that tanking has shifted from being an occasional tactic to a structural threat to the NBA’s image and product.
The rule ideas on the table
Discussions between the league, the competition committee and ownership groups have produced an extensive menu of potential reforms, all designed to make bottoming out a less attractive strategy. While not all of them are expected to be implemented, sources indicate that a meaningful package of changes is being prepared.
Among the ideas being seriously considered are:
- Limiting first‑round pick protections
Teams could see protections restricted to top‑4 or full‑lottery (top‑14) ranges, curbing complex trade constructions that currently encourage franchises to sink in the standings to retain or convey protected picks at optimal times. - Freezing lottery odds at the trade deadline
Under this concept, a team’s lottery probabilities would be locked in as of the deadline, removing the incentive to aggressively pivot into a late‑season nosedive once it becomes clear the playoffs are out of reach. - Capping consecutive top‑4 selections
One proposal would prevent teams from picking in the top‑4 in consecutive drafts, or from finishing among the three worst records in back-to-back seasons, in an effort to discourage extended, multi‑year free-falls. - Blocking recent contenders from the very top
Another option under consideration is to rule out any team from drafting in the top‑4 the season after reaching a conference finals, designed to stop franchises from tearing down competitive rosters immediately after deep postseason runs. - Using multi‑year records for lottery odds
The league has also explored weighting lottery odds based on a team’s performance over the past two seasons, rewarding consistent effort and making single‑season collapses less rewarding. - Expanding and flattening the lottery
Extending lottery participation to play‑in teams and further flattening the odds among non‑playoff clubs would reduce the marginal benefit of being truly terrible versus simply missing out on the postseason.
The league is unlikely to adopt every measure at once, but there is a clear intent to reshape the risk‑reward equation in front offices that have grown comfortable with aggressive rebuilds.
External pressure and public optics
The push to overhaul anti‑tanking rules is not just coming from the commissioner’s office. High‑profile figures around the league have spent months calling for action. Mike Krzyzewski, a key voice in the NBA’s basketball operations structure, told general managers that a “quick and measured” response was needed, urging teams to prepare for a different competitive landscape.
Phoenix Suns owner Mat Ishbia went even further, describing tanking as “much worse than any props betting scandal” in a widely shared post on X, a comparison that struck a nerve in a league still calibrating its relationship with legal gambling. Recent fines for teams such as the Utah Jazz and Indiana Pacers over conduct deemed harmful to player participation policies have reinforced the sense that the league is ready to move from warnings to enforcement.
For the NBA, the optics are increasingly important. At a time when the product is consumed live and in real time across social media, long stretches of apparently non‑competitive basketball can damage trust as much as officiating controversies or off‑court scandals.
Will the changes actually fix tanking?
Inside front offices, there is cautious acceptance that reform is coming, but differing views on how much it will actually change behaviour. Several analysts have noted that this season is especially volatile, with the 2026 draft class widely projected to be strong and multiple teams trying to manage complex pick protections.
Critics argue that as long as the worst teams are rewarded with access to the top of the draft, there will always be creative ways to “rebuild” right up to the edge of the rulebook. Suggestions from outside the league include tying draft order to wins after the All‑Star break or setting a minimum number of victories to qualify for the lottery. Still, those ideas remain theoretical and, for now, politically difficult.
Supporters of reform counter that even incremental changes can meaningfully alter decision‑making. If the advantage of being the absolute worst team shrinks and safeguards limit extended losing streaks, the argument goes, front offices will be nudged toward staying competitive rather than pressing the reset button.
Protecting the fan experience
Beyond the technical debate around lottery math and pick protections, the league’s priority is clear: ensuring that every regular‑season night has something at stake. The in‑season tournament was introduced with that goal in mind, raising the competitive intensity of early‑season games; the next challenge is securing the final months of the calendar against suspicious line‑ups and streaks of “strategic” defeats.
For fans, especially younger audiences watching globally, the perception that teams are losing on purpose undermines the basic promise of sport: that everyone on the floor is trying to win. The coming season will not just test the effectiveness of any new anti‑tanking rules, but also how far the NBA is willing to go to protect its core narrative — that competing hard, from October to April, always matters.
