Fresh anti-tanking proposals are back on the table, but the NBA may still be chasing the wrong solution.
ESPN reported this week that the league has presented three new draft lottery concepts ahead of a potential vote in May 2026. Each proposal expands the lottery pool, pulling in teams from the play-in and, in one version, even the first round of the playoffs.
It is a significant shift in structure. It also raises a familiar question about whether changing the system can actually change behavior.
The NBA’s latest proposals would reshape the lottery
One option introduces an 18-team lottery, combining the 10 teams that miss the postseason with all eight play-in teams. In that setup, the bottom 10 would receive equal odds for the top pick, while the remaining chances would be distributed among the play-in group.
A second model goes further, expanding the pool to 22 teams. That version factors in a two-year record and applies a win floor, reducing the benefit of collapsing in a single season.
Another concept, referred to as “5 by 5,” gives the five worst teams identical top odds while limiting how far they can fall in the draft order.
Each approach targets the same issue. None guarantees it disappears.
History shows why the NBA keeps revisiting this
Lottery reform is not new. The league has been adjusting the system for decades in an attempt to reduce the incentive to lose.
The most recent major change arrived in 2019, when the NBA flattened the odds so the three worst teams each held a 14% chance at the No. 1 pick. The lottery draw also expanded to the top four selections, increasing uncertainty for teams at the bottom.
Those changes reduced the value of finishing last. They did not eliminate the appeal of chasing elite draft talent.
Ownership priorities remain the harder problem to solve
The discussion in the ESPN segment cuts to the part that rule changes cannot fully address.
Not every franchise operates with the same objective. Some owners are willing to absorb heavy costs in pursuit of a title. Others are comfortable maintaining relevance, controlling spending, and staying competitive enough to keep the business stable.
That difference matters more than lottery math. A system can discourage extreme losing, but it cannot force ambition.
Why the incentive still exists
Elite draft picks remain one of the clearest paths to changing a franchise’s trajectory. In a league driven by star talent, landing the right player can reshape everything from on-court results to long-term valuation.
Recent roster-building constraints have only strengthened that reality. With fewer avenues to construct expensive superteams, the draft becomes even more important.
Given that environment, some teams will always see value in stepping back before moving forward.
The next vote may not settle the debate
League officials are right to keep pushing for solutions. Tanking affects competition, particularly late in the season, and damages the product.
Another lottery overhaul could shift incentives again. Whether it changes intent across all ownership groups is far less certain.
For now, the NBA is trying to adjust the system once more. The deeper question is whether the system is really where the problem begins.
Discussion about this post