Major reforms to the draft lottery system could be on the horizon beginning next year.
The NBA has shared with its 30 GMs a new anti-tanking, draft reform proposal termed the “3-2-1 lottery” that includes expanding the lottery to 16 teams, flattened odds, and a “relegation zone” where the bottom three teams will be penalized with fewer lottery balls for the No. 1 pick, ESPN’s Shams Charania reports.
If passed during the league’s Board of Governors meeting on May 28, the new system would be in place in 2027.
Here’s some of the key elements to the “3-2-1” proposal, named to represent the number of lottery balls per team, according to Charania and The Athletic’s Sam Amick:
- Teams that do not qualify for the playoffs or play-in tournament but stay out of the relegation zone (ie. the teams that finish with the fourth-worst record through the 10th-worst record) would receive three lottery balls each.
- Teams with a bottom-three record — the relegation area — would have just two lottery balls but would have a floor of the 12th pick, while the rest of the 13 lottery teams could fall as far as the 16th pick.
- The 9th and 10th play-in seeds in each conference receive two lottery balls each, while the losers of the 7-8 play-in games receive one lottery ball each.
- No team would be able to win the No. 1 overall pick in consecutive years or be able to have three consecutive top-five picks.
- Trade rules would also be impacted. Teams would not be able to include protection in the 12-to-15 range on traded picks going forward.
- The proposal includes a sunset provision, with the new system expiring following the 2029 draft and requiring an affirmative vote of the Board of Governors to either continue with the system or transition to a new one.
- The league would have expanded disciplinary authority to regulate tanking by having the option to reduce teams’ lottery odds and/or modify teams’ draft positions.
Commissioner Adam Silver, who has been pushing hard for a revised lottery system, initially offered a variety of proposals to address tanking. The league office has held multiple critical meetings with its Board of Governors, competition committee and 30 GMs over the last few weeks to narrow toward this new singular proposal ahead of the owners’ vote.
There could be minor modifications to the proposal, but the key points of the framework have a majority of the support from teams, sources told Charania.
Barf
Changing the lottery odds without helping reform the ability for bad small market teams to get good is meaningless and a half measure.
Many of the bad small market teams are bad due to bad ownership. And there is no fix for that.
Because the “tanking reforms” have nothing to do with helping small market teams or even making a better experience for the fans. They just want teams to roll out their best lineup for every game so GAMBLING COMPANIES don’t get upset. When a team sits their starters, the odds don’t work out as predicted, and money is lost. Teams will still tank because they have no other option.
You don’t think that stuff is already factored in? That’s why the league hates last-minute sits specifically, at which point it would be too late for adjustments or lineups would already be locked. Ditto for players getting unpredictable minutes due to trying to intentionally lose in-game.
You’re also talking more about moneylines and such rather than DFS, where this would be less consequential other than potentially pissing off the users who would be frustrated by these inconsistencies. The sites still get their cut regardless.
If the tanking teams are upfront about who would start/sit and don’t engage in any in-game shenanigans there isn’t much of an issue.
Flattening the odds all the way down this severely has nothing to do with “being upfront” about who sits. This is more about wanting teams to be playing in a way that maximizes their chances of being a Bulls or Heat-like team, rather than just going for the best lottery pick possible.
With free agency being dead for star players, getting some good picks are the only way to starting turning a franchise around. Even the Wizards, with their purchases of Young and AD, still needed to get strong young players before becoming a buying team. Flattening the lottery odds won’t change this IMO.
Never said I disagreed with that, only that this was mostly about the gambling companies losing money directly. Don’t get me wrong, I know the NBA is very much in bed with them and I’m sure it was part of the calculation to an extent, but I just don’t see these particular changes being chiefly about that beyond the exceptions I noted above, which are more about the in-game shenanigans.
But, yeah, the league needs to do a better job of supporting ethical tanking while still incentivizing winning. And the former cause is why I don’t love the idea of only giving two lottery balls to the three worst teams who could also pick as low as 12, for starters.
It’ll be interesting to see what the next CBA looks like as well. If these tanking reforms stick and are effective, the league will definitely need to give the small market rebuilding teams some additional tools to work with.
Read some of it elsewhere. Seems ok, but it didn’t mention how they would handle teams that had traded for the picks.
Example, Team A trades for Team B’s pick one year, and Team C’s the next. If B and C’s picks both won the lottery and got first picks that conveyed to team A, would Team A not be allowed to get that second years first overall pick? Seems unfair to penalize a team that is not tanking, but just got really fortunate. It’s probably in there somewhere, but the brief snippets I have seen didn’t mention traded picks at all.
Please note I am posting this before any significant details have been posted here. Just getting a head start in case someone knows already.
It’s not perfect but something needed to be done, for at least half of the year 10 teams didn’t even try to be competitive. It was so bad and uninteresting as a fan. A bunch of nobodies starting actual nba games. It’s insulting to the fans who pay to watch their product.
As a fan of a losing team, I upvoted you but only half-agree.
I agree that fans paying hundreds – or even thousands! – of dollars to attend NBA games feel insulted or disappointed just to see a G-league lineup or strange fourth quarter shenanigans in winnable games. Casual or not, these fans deserve a competitive effort to win every game.
But as a fan that wants to see a championship or build toward one, I think the long-term (3-7 years) also matters. It helps immensely going to bed at night knowing that as long as the team develops promising talent, eventually the losing will end. To that end, I would rather get three lottery balls than try to get the 7th or 8th seed out of the play-in only to lose in the first round and get one lottery ball, year after year. (Thinking of the Chicago Bulls or Miami Heat, perennial 9-seeds) So while I would be angry attending Jazz games during a tanking year, I would probably prefer they lose until they have the talent foundation to contend for a championship in 3-5 years. Getting a ninth seed and never climbing out of mediocrity due to picking 12th every year isn’t exciting for competitive fans that want to see a championship in their lifetimes.
It may just depend on the fan. Those attending games as a family event and entertainment may prioritize the game(s) they attend, but there are also diehards that want that championship, because it cements the team forever. (Think 2011 Dallas Mavs — didn’t tank, but winning a championship is a huge difference for Dirk’s legacy and how fans remember or bond with the team.)
Why not have lottery tournament to decide. So the winner gets the first pick and then it’s decided based on where teams get eliminated. Keep it at 14 teams. 2 teams get first round byes. It would only add 3-4 games to players work loads. You can even play the games at a neutral site that way travel isn’t an issue.
So we’re going to have teams like charlotte that won a play in game and almost made the playoffs play against teams with nowhere near as much talent and the winner gets a better draft pick? Seems like the truly bad teams that need better picks would just get screwed over by that year after year. Lose 60 games and get the 12 pick for your troubles doesn’t seem right.
How is it possible to absolutely hate every idea that the league has for this? You’d think that they would have 1 decent idea. Hell you’d think that they’d have one decent part of an overall garbage idea. Instead it’s this overly complex crap that will ensure that teams that are bad going into next season will remain bad through the 2029 season, which seems to be entirely against the idea of expansion.
I like a lottery tournament(think of the added revenue) and why penalize the losers of the play in tournament with less lottery balls if I’m reading that right.
The bottom 3 is a bit harsh but damn it sure will rev up ALL the engines ! Kinda like it tbh
It’s a quasi form of relegation and ensures maximum effort from the jump and 12 months roundthe clock from the sleeping front offices
We should want that , this should bump trade activity ( and disperse draft capital more evenly ) up as well which everyone likes
Time to wake up sleeping beauties and joiin the league
Adam Silver single handedly ruining the NBA
It’s not that hard
Lottery tournament of non playoff teams
Single elimination
Random drawing to match teams
Winners each round increase baseline draft odds
Loser each round decrease baseline draft odds
Not sure by what percent it should decrease increase by
But if you want to stop tanking or get good games out of bad teams lottery tournament
Don’t think this is the answer. What’s in it for the players? Lottery teams usually have sub par on non guaranteed contracts or rising talent. For the sub par players they would be basically playing hard so the team gets a better chance at drafting the guy that replaces them.
“Don’t think this is the answer. What’s in it for the players?”
Not remaining on bad teams? Adding a number 1 overal pick replaces 1 guy whos what 15th on your depth chart and not playing in the tournament or in games anyways unless theres a blow out one way or the other.
Those subpar non guaranteed contract guys also get replaced in free agency, you realize that right?
Also, if they do manage to play see time they’re auditioning themselves for other job opportunities elsewhere. Sitting 15 deep on the bench isn’t getting them a new gig any time soon
He already has
You’re single handedly ruining the paragraph.
Not like you can read a paragraph anyways. He’s doing it a favor
Just shifts where the tanking happens. Might see mediocre teams throw games to get out of the playoffs/play-in. Why fight to get swept in the first round and a middle of the round pick when you could lock in a decent chance at a top pick. If anything, it incentivizes being just bad enough to miss the playoffs.
Agreed. The bottom line is there has to be more incentive for teams to make the play-in/playoffs. Good teams that fall to those spots for one reason or another (injuries most likely) will probably want to stay in but the rest may not (unless you’re a team like the Bulls addicted to mediocrity).
That said, I’m not sure how you would realistically accomplish that other than by bumping up their own lottery odds and including the first round losers in the lottery. This is the problem in a sport where half the teams make the playoffs and you often get teams with no realistic chance as the 7th/8th seeds. Not always, but usually.
I do think, though, that this would at least reduce tanking a little bit. Not to the point where we wouldn’t see cases like this arise, but at least compared to what we have now. Still, the league can do better. They just have to get more creative.
Just trying to brainstorm some weird solutions but here are a few:
-Teams which make the playoffs bump up their lottery balls by one the next time they end up in the lottery (or, at least have this apply to first round losers, etc). If they make the playoffs consecutive times before ending up in the lottery again, any additional boost is carried over to the following year a max of 2 times (assuming they would remain in the lottery)
-Loosen some of the pick restrictions on the play-in/lower-seeded playoff teams
Thinking more about it, I do like the idea of teams being able to boost their future odds, as it would both incentivize winning in the present while still allowing teams to feel better about their future prospects. And I don’t really see another way to convince teams who might otherwise feel the need to reset to not do so in the present.
Ridiculous. How does the NBA not understand that you need to incentivize winning? Someone has to finish in the bottom 3, even if they’re trying to win and are just plain bad. You don’t punish them. What you do is flatten out the odds as best you can with the bottom teams still having better odds. Then you allow teams to gain odds via wins after a certain point in the season. Wins vs. teams with better records after game 41. Wins in general after that point. You have to incentivize winning.
Except strength of schedule would come into play. If a team has a difficult strength of schedule in the 2nd half why should they essentially be penalized by having their schedule structured that way? Ditto for later-season injuries.
If the ultimate goal is to help bad teams who do things the right way this wouldn’t necessarily hit that mark. What it would do is reward the best non-playoff teams and/or those with more favorable circumstances down the stretch.
Don’t disagree that incentivizing wins would be ideal, but all of the solutions I’ve seen thus are imperfect in a way that I’d still go back to the drawing board.
Teif the problem is teams manipulating their rosters to get more ping ping balls, imagine how much manipulation there will be with teams on the cusp of finishing their or fourth.
You’re absolutely correct. But we’re in 2026. Do it weighted. Use a formula. There are ways to do it that incentivizes winning not losing. They’re already leaning that way – rewarding the play-in teams. But that doesn’t leave any rewards for the teams that you really need to be trying down the stretch.
Being 4th or 10th doesnt change nothing, all 6 teams have the same odds.
In theory, the bottom 3 teams will now try to win to get out of the relegation zone and become the 4th team.
If the odds are properly flattened, you shouldn’t need to punish the bottom 3 teams. That’s the part of this proposal that could really harm teams that aren’t tanking, but just end up being awful.
I didnt understand the protection thing, does this mean picks cant be top 12 protected anymore? Or is it just for 12, 13, 14 and 15?
The wording from both The Athletic and ESPN is “Teams would not be able to protect picks in the 12 to 15 slots going forward.”
I’d want some additional clarification to be sure, but I assume the goal is to avoid teams trading a top-16 protected pick and then tanking out of a top-six seed or tanking the 7/8 play-in game to assure they keep that pick.
I imagine top-8, top-10 protection, etc. would still be permitted, since there’s no way to assure yourself of keeping a pick in that range if even the league’s worst team could slide to 12th.
What a load of garbage…
This will stop the process style tanking…
Which we haven’t seen since…
There’s no incentive to make the play in now… mediocre teams are incentivised to lose games to get into the 11-14 spot…
They just moved the tanking zone higher…
NBA should be severing all ties with gambling companies instead of pretending that there is even anything really wrong with the draft lottery system. It really doesn’t matter, the draft isn’t linear, its not “the best player is #1, second-best is #2”. Teams can also draft the “best” player but he ends up the wrong player for their system, so it’s not even a given, which is weird, because all the draft haters seem to believe that to be true, when it its not. Its actually no big deal if a team gets #6 instead of #4. Gambling is the real problem.
There’s a better chance at nba separating from alcohol sponsors then gambling at this point. Both are there forever now.
More often than not, yes, that’s how things play out. But just look at the Wemby draft, where there was a very clear #1. It doesn’t always happen, but when it does teams will go crazy. And there are sometimes drop-off tiers where teams want to end up in a specific range. As much as I agree that good teams will find talent basically anywhere in the first round lottery, it doesn’t change the fact that teams will still stubbornly try to position themselves accordingly. So it doesn’t necessarily matter what you or I may believe.
Yes, every draft is different and there USUALLY is a “clear #1” but the rest? Nope, its still a crapshoot. Top 10 picks can still bomb out after having every single expert say they are going to be stars.
Don’t disagree, just saying that some teams—especially those with worse front offices—will still prioritize higher draft selections, whether due to a lack of critical thinking, desperation, etc.
I mean, just look at how many fans feel the same way, willing to tolerate even the most anti-competitive behavior imaginable in the name of slightly better draft odds. Although fans (thankfully) don’t run front offices, front offices are people too.
As for the gambling stuff, you’re also not wrong there but that ship has sailed unless enough fans would come to boycott the entire product. The only way I see that divestment happening is if there is a scandal so large that it would turn off a sizeable chunk of fans. Definitely not impossible, but I think the most likely outcome is a significant, though not as large, scandal that forces the league to tighten the gambling rules again (and again, and again). Hope I am wrong about that.
Part of the problem with the gambling stuff is how it has infested every major sport. So if you’re a fan who is anti-gambling and is considering a boycott, would you be willing to boycott all of them?
It sucks that as a society we’ve reached a point where the only way to make our voices heard is through such measures, yet if we were to boycott every instance warranting it we would all be broke and living in a cave lol. Not to suggest picking and choosing where one is willing to take a stand isn’t still beneficial, it’s just frustrating when there are so many instances of “too big to fail”. All we can do is try to balance that stuff while still living a good life.
Putting a no top 5 picks back to back years rule in would help fix the tanking better than any of the stuff the nba is going to do. If a team is awful and desperately needs talent picking 6th is still high enough for a difference maker and should be enough of a deterrent to stop some of the obvious tanking from this season. Fining billionaires millions hasn’t and won’t stop future tanking until the lottery is less teams with a chance at #1, not more. The big markets need quicker rebuilds tho, so the lottery is never getting better and just punishes small markets.
The fundamental problem is that the game itself is & always has been dominated by superstars.
Teams without a superstar are doomed. We all knew before the season even started that the Wiz and the Nets were bad & that their only hope was to aim for the draft pick.
Because the only way for them to get competitive is to acquire a superstar & then build around him.
No amount of jury-rigging the draft will change that.
All this will just change the target that losing teams will aim for. It still leaves their only hope in the draft & they will still chase that elusive superstar.
The real solution is simple: eliminate the draft and there is no more tanking. Let players coming into the league sign with whatever team they want and let teams pay them whatever they need to in order to sign them.
If they got rid of the lottery and followed the NFL and just went by record instead of a lottery tanking would happen less. I don’t think people would want the Dodgers in the NBA…
The original reason the NBA went to a lottery was to reduce the incentive to tank. They have tweaked things several times since then but it hasn’t worked. The draft is the problem. As long as there is a draft there will be tanking.
I think the fear of eliminating the draft is overblown. Players want to play and they want to get paid. Not all the players are going to sign, for example, with the Lakers if they can not get minutes and if the Lakers can’t pay them as much (because of the salary cap) as say Utah or Milwaukee.
Players would all take less $ for a guaranteed super team and the NBA would have the Dodgers. They need a draft for small markets to ever even dream of competing for a championship. The thing is, these new dumb lottery rules make a small markets chances at getting a generational talent even smaller.
NFL is the only draft that makes sense, and actually tries to get the worst teams better quicker. NBA has always tried to get big markets as winners with a lottery and MLB is the worst of them all with no cap and now adding a lottery so a team can spend 500mil more and still get to jump you in the draft for a better pick now if they miss the playoffs too.
The players we are talking about are the college kids coming into the NBA. Those guys are not going to take much less money to go to a super team and sit on the bench and hurt their the chances to get a big second contract. You can not use the Dodgers as an example because they are in a league that does not have a salary cap and where the draft is not nearly as impactful as in the NBA or NFL.
College kids are already getting millions for their 1 year of college and would absolutely go get a championship and then chase money on their 2nd contract after they have a ring and don’t care about winning. With no cap it would be a handful of Dodgers type franchises that everyone wants to go play for and the rest of the league would be more hopeless then they already are with this current and newly proposed draft format.
Players do not ring chase until AFTER they have made the big money. There is no way a college kid with the potential to be a star is going to take a fraction of his worth to sit on the bench just to get a stupid ring and then not be able to maximize his second contract. It is a business first. Without the draft the NBA cap will prevent the top college players from all going to the same handful of teams because those players want to get paid what they are worth and they want to play. I guarantee you that AJ Dybantsa would not sign for the rookie min of 2 million/year with Boston to win a ring instead of signing with Brooklyn for 20 million/year
He is going to get drafted. Your proposal doesn’t fit with 90+% of the players who would ring chase when given a rotation spot on a contender. The draft exists so players can’t all go to Boston, New York, California, or Texas. There’s at least 10 players in this draft who should be immediate impact players as rookies. Those 10 shouldn’t get to pick where they want to play.
I support anything that causes gambling companies to go bankrupt and also people who bet on sports to end up alone and also bankrupt.
Silver doesn’t want to end tanking (or he’d just do it). He just wants to address the elements of it that have been openly shoved in the league’s (his) face over the past several years. E.g., protected picks have nothing to do with any real tanking, but DAL and UTH felt the need to flip off Silver, while dissing his precious play-in games. Nevertheless, I thought an initial version of the current proposal had some potential to at least reduce some of the worst types of tanking. No longer. Silver and his bureaucrats have seen to that.