The NBA is weighing significant changes to its draft lottery system amid growing concern that some teams are intentionally losing games to improve their chances of securing top picks.
Share
LOS ANGELES — The National Basketball Association (NBA) is weighing significant changes to its draft lottery system amid growing concern that some teams are intentionally losing games to improve their chances of securing top picks, a practice known as "tanking" that the league believes undermines competitive integrity and erodes fan trust.
According to reports from local news outlets on Friday, the NBA's Board of Governors was presented this week with three draft lottery reform proposals. All three concepts would expand the number of teams eligible for the lottery and flatten the odds, thereby reducing the advantage of finishing at the bottom of the standings.
None of the proposals has been finalised, and team owners are expected to debate and potentially combine elements before a vote anticipated in May, the reports said, noting the league's commitment to addressing the "tanking" problem, reports Xinhua.
Also read: Miami Open: Sinner storms into final with dominant win over Zverev
"We are going to fix it," NBA Commissioner Adam Silver told reporters earlier this month, adding that distinguishing between deliberate losing and legitimate rebuilding has become increasingly difficult.
The issue has gained urgency as league executives project the 2026 draft class to be one of the strongest in recent years, increasing the incentive for struggling teams to finish with the worst possible record.
Under the current system, teams with poorer records are assigned higher odds in the draft lottery, a structure designed to help weaker franchises rebuild, but one that critics say encourages non-competitive play late in the season.
The proposals, disclosed by several media outlets on Friday, are described as significant, complex, and potentially controversial.
The first proposal would expand the lottery to include 18 teams - the 10 teams that miss the postseason and the eight teams that qualify for the Play-In Tournament. Under this plan, the bottom 10 teams would receive equal odds, while Play-In teams would share the remaining chances in descending order. All 18 draft positions would be determined by lottery rather than regular-season record.
League officials said the approach would make finishing last less advantageous and reduce incentives for extreme losing. Critics, however, warned that it could allow mid-tier teams to benefit nearly as much as genuinely struggling franchises, potentially leaving some teams without a clear path to improvement.
The second proposal would further expand the lottery to 22 teams by including four teams eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. It would also rank teams based on their combined win totals over the previous two seasons, rather than a single year. A minimum win threshold would be introduced to prevent teams from being rewarded for severe declines.
Supporters argued that such a system would discourage long-term tanking strategies. Opponents countered that playoff-calibre teams affected by injuries or short-term downturns could still be rewarded with high picks, raising concerns about fairness and competitive balance.
The third concept, known internally as the "five-by-five" double lottery, would retain an 18-team field but alter how odds are distributed. The five worst teams would share identical odds for the top pick, with one lottery determining the top five selections and a second lottery sorting the remaining teams. No bottom-five team could fall lower than 10th overall.
The proposal is intended to discourage a race to the bottom while protecting weaker teams from dramatic draft declines. However, some executives have expressed concern that consistently underperforming teams could struggle to rebuild if they repeatedly miss out on top-tier selections.
Silver has said the league must strike a balance between discouraging intentional losing and preserving legitimate rebuilding efforts, particularly for small-market teams. He also acknowledged that increasing the system's complexity could create new challenges if fans find it difficult to understand how draft positions are determined. If the lottery becomes too complicated, the league risks solving one problem while creating another.
Meanwhile, some observers believe that no changes to the draft lottery rules can fully eliminate the "tanking" problem, noting that "more than maybe any other team sport, one elite basketball player can change everything," making it worthwhile for teams to do whatever it takes to secure a top prospect.
"Ultimately, none of these proposals will completely stop tanking. The next time there is a Cade Cunningham or Anthony Edwards or Cooper Flagg -- or especially a generational player like Victor Wembanyama -- in a draft, teams will do anything and everything to maximise their chances in that lottery," NBC Sports said Friday.