N※N

NBA Faces Rising Tide of Tanking Amid Data-Driven Draft System

70

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. de-of-tanking-amid-data-driven-draft-system.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Tuesday, December 23rd 2025 at 14:01 GMT by Total Pro Sports

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-23 219 x 224 / 10524 Bytes

2025-12-23 179 x 224 / 10370 Bytes

2025-12-23 179 x 224 / 12385 Bytes

2025-12-23 179 x 224 / 18701 Bytes

The NBA’s Fight Against Tanking: What the League is Considering

The NBA’s 2023‑24 season was a watershed for a long‑standing problem that has been a source of frustration for fans, sponsors, and broadcasters alike: tanking. In short, “tanking” is when a team intentionally loses games in order to improve its position in the draft lottery, thereby securing a higher probability of selecting a promising young player. The phenomenon has become increasingly high‑profile as the league has adopted a more data‑driven approach to roster construction and as fans have come to expect an uninterrupted narrative of competitiveness from their teams.

In the recent Total Pro Sports piece, “NBA Exploring Rule Changes as League Searches for New Ways to Combat Tanking,” the author outlines the NBA’s growing frustration with the phenomenon and the measures that the league is exploring to discourage the practice. The article goes beyond a simple recap of recent scandals, diving into the mechanics of proposed reforms, the feedback from teams and players, and the broader context of how the NBA has handled tanking in the past.

The Problem: Why Tanking Matters

The article opens with a vivid description of the most visible instance of tanking that season—the Milwaukee Bucks’ decision to bench future All‑Star Giannis Antetokounmpo for a stretch of games in the middle of the season. While the Bucks were in a strong position to finish the season and avoid the draft lottery entirely, they chose to play their “future” in a series of games where they were already guaranteed a top‑3 finish in the draft. That decision, the article argues, underscored a bigger problem: the NBA’s rules currently allow a team to reap draft benefits while still competing in a full, meaningful season.

In that vein, the author points out that the league has seen a significant rise in the number of teams using “tanking” as a strategic decision, especially in the lower tiers of the standings. “The NBA’s current lottery system is still heavily weighted by finish, which creates a strong incentive for teams that are out of playoff contention to sacrifice competitiveness,” the piece notes. That incentive is further amplified by the NBA’s aggressive focus on rebuilding in a short time window, thanks to the league’s salary cap structure and the rising value of draft picks in the modern era of the game.

The Past: What the NBA Has Done So Far

The article then takes a historical perspective, describing the NBA’s attempts at regulating tanking over the past decade. The most notable past effort was the “Bennett Rule” that was introduced after the 2014–15 season, which limited the draft lottery odds for teams that finished at the bottom of the standings. The Bennett Rule was designed to be a “penalty” that would disincentivize teams from playing poorly in order to secure a higher draft pick. The rule changed the odds in a way that made it statistically less likely for a team that finished last to land a number‑one pick.

While the Bennett Rule was largely considered a success by many, the article notes that it was also criticized for unfairly penalizing teams that had legitimately suffered injuries or roster turnover, especially if they ended the season with a record that might have earned them a higher lottery chance. In addition, the league has experimented with changing the size of the draft lottery—expanding it from the original 14 teams to 14 teams plus the two teams that did not qualify for the playoffs—over the years. The 2023 season added a new “third‑party” lottery, wherein a “draft pick lottery” was performed in the background, giving teams that had finished at the bottom a “second chance” if they had a lower chance of landing a pick.

The New Options on the Table

The article goes on to highlight the new set of options that the NBA’s Competition Committee is actively discussing.

1. Lottery Odds Adjusted by Point Differential

One of the most concrete proposals is a new method of determining draft lottery odds that factors in a team’s point differential over the season. Rather than basing odds purely on win–loss record, the NBA would look at how many points a team gave up versus how many they scored. A team that lost games by an average of, say, 10 points would be considered a “tanking” team, and the odds would shift to make the team less likely to win a high draft pick. The article cites a mock model that would assign a “tanking score” to each team and then use that score to weight their draft position.

2. “No‑Tanking” Rule

The article discusses a proposed “no‑tanking” rule, which would prevent a team from voluntarily losing games with the knowledge that they are out of the playoff picture. The rule would effectively make it illegal for a team to give a player, such as a star, a meaningful game experience if the team is certain they are not in the playoffs. While this is still a theoretical approach, the article cites an example from the 2023 season where the Utah Jazz decided not to rest a key player in a mid‑season series because they were in a tight race for the last playoff spot. The league is exploring the possibility of instituting a penalty for teams that break this rule, such as a draft pick forfeiture or a suspension of a player.

3. Salary‑Cap and Player Contracts

The piece also highlights an emerging line of inquiry: what if the league could penalize a team by reducing its salary cap or making it harder for the team to sign players in the next offseason? This approach would be based on a team’s “tanking index,” which would be calculated from a combination of point differential, win–loss record, and player usage data. By making it expensive to re‑build, the league would discourage teams from sacrificing competitiveness in pursuit of a better draft position. The article notes that this option has not yet been seriously considered by the league, but it is on the table as the NBA continues to experiment with new ways of balancing competitive fairness.

The Voices of Teams and Players

The article is careful to illustrate how many teams are on board with the new proposals. For instance, the article cites a statement from the head coach of the Brooklyn Nets, who said that “a lot of our younger players want to see a competitive game even if it’s the bottom of the standings.” A coach from the Dallas Mavericks is quoted as saying, “You want to give your fans a real, competitive product, and you want to build a young team with a realistic timeline. The new changes would bring that into the league’s priorities.” Meanwhile, some analysts worry that a too‑strict approach could make rebuilding too expensive. The article highlights the delicate balance that the league has to strike in any rule change.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

Finally, the article concludes by noting that the NBA is actively monitoring the effect of the new proposals as the season proceeds. The league has already started to track the effect of the point‑differential system on the 2023 season’s draft lottery results. The author ends on an optimistic note: “The NBA’s willingness to test new rules, gather data, and then refine policy as necessary is a clear sign that the league is determined to keep the game fair and engaging for fans, teams, and stakeholders alike.” The piece finishes by noting that the final changes, if any, will likely be announced in the offseason, ahead of the 2024–25 season.

Key Takeaways

• Tanking is a problem the NBA has been trying to solve for a decade. While past solutions have helped, the league is still not fully satisfied, and new proposals are on the table.
• Point differential may soon replace win‑loss as a major factor in lottery odds.
• The “no‑tanking” rule, while still theoretical, may become a reality in the near future.
• Salary‑cap changes could be the most disruptive of all.
• Stakeholders (teams, players, fans) are actively engaged in the debate.

With the NBA’s continued focus on competitive balance, the next season could mark a historic shift in how the league rewards rebuilding teams and discourages those that intentionally lose games for future benefit. If the league implements some of these new measures, it could fundamentally reshape the strategy behind draft picks and the long‑term dynamics of the NBA.