The NBA’s Board of Governors has a meeting scheduled on May 28 to vote on draft lottery reform and new anti-tanking measures, ESPN’s Shams Charania said today during an appearance on NBA Today (Twitter video link).
The league’s tanking problem, which commissioner Adam Silver has vowed to address this offseason, was one of the topics of discussion during March’s Board of Governors meeting. Conversations about potential solutions are ongoing — according to Charania, there was a general manager call on Tuesday night to continue talking through the issue.
The NBA presented three separate lottery reform concepts to its governors at March’s meeting, though reporting earlier today suggested that the league-wide response to those idea has been lukewarm. Each of the three proposals involves expanding the lottery to at least 18 teams and reducing the odds of the league’s very worst teams landing the No. 1 overall pick.
During his NBA Today segment, Charania said that the concept that has gained the most momentum in recent weeks is the one that would expand the lottery to 18 teams and give the bottom 10 teams equal odds at the top pick (8% each). The remaining 20% would be split among the eight play-in teams, with each of the top 18 spots in the draft drawn via lottery.
According to Charania, the expectation is that if the NBA moves forward on that concept, it would undergo some modifications before it’s officially implemented and wouldn’t look exactly like initial reporting suggested. Any changes the league makes to the lottery won’t go into effect earlier than 2027.
The NBA has also sought the ability to assess more punitive penalties for teams engaging in lineup manipulation or other tanking tactics, while the players’ union has suggested implementing a “merit payment” system like the one in soccer’s Premier League, which would give winning teams larger shares of the league’s national television revenue. However, there’s no indication that the latter idea has gained traction with the league or team owners.
None of the ideas the owners like, so what will actually work for all sides involved? That’s the question
At least the owners picked the best of Silver’s idiotic proposals. The thing that makes it less idiotic than the others is the drawing all of the first 18 spots. It eliminates the 100% guarantee of getting (at least) a good pick via tanking. That’s been a critical consolation prize, without which it would be harder for a FO to justify tanking to ownership and fans.
Still, there is still a tanking question. But it moves to teams on the cusp of the 10th seed and the 6th seed. Will teams always want that higher seed or not?
– Is it better to finish 10th and get a play-in game (knowing you’ll need to go 2-0 to get the privilege of getting hammered by the #1 seed) or finish 11th and get an extra 5.5% chance of getting a top pick (8% vs 2.5%).
– Is it better to finish 6th and definitely in the playoffs (with no chance at a top pick) OR finish 7th (knowing you only need to win 1 of 2 games to get in the playoffs) and get a 2.5% chance of getting a top pick.
Eliminate load management, call dribbling violations and less technicals
NBA almost fixed