The NBA finds itself wrestling with a problem that has become impossible to ignore: teams are sometimes prioritizing draft position over on-court competitiveness. League executives and front offices have been debating changes to the draft lottery structure in response to a pattern commonly known as tanking, which the league defines as intentionally losing games to improve future draft placement. Reporting from insiders such as Shams Charania has made clear that reform proposals are actively being discussed, and a formal decision is scheduled for a Board of Governors vote on May 28, 2026.
That debate comes after a season in which several teams appeared to trade late-season effort for better lottery odds, prompting frustration from fans, players and advertisers. The proposed rules are not a cosmetic fix: they seek to change the fundamental incentives behind roster construction and playing time decisions. The conversation centers on a concept often called flattened odds, and it promises to alter how losing translates into draft advantage. To understand what is being proposed and why it matters, it helps to unpack the mechanics and the likely fallout for team strategy.
Why the league wants to change the lottery
At stake is the integrity of competition. When teams have a clear benefit to finishing with one of the worst records, the regular season can morph into a ledger of future assets rather than a run of meaningful games. League officials argue that reducing those incentives will produce more competitive matchups and a better product for fans. The proposed reforms aim to alter the mathematical reward for losing: instead of a steeply sloped probability that heavily favors the very worst teams, the idea is to redistribute chances so that finishing last no longer confers a significant edge. This intention—to disincentivize what many call jockeying for draft position—is the central rationale driving the reform push.
What the leading proposal would change
The plan gaining the most traction would expand the lottery pool to 18 teams while leveling the top-prize odds for the bottom 10 clubs, so each would have the same probability of winning the No. 1 pick. Under current arrangements, the worst record carries the highest single-team percentage; under the proposed flattened odds scheme, that advantage would be eliminated. League sources have said modifications are likely—possible tiering within the 18-team group, for instance—but the dominant theme is clear: make deliberate losses less rewarding and nudge franchises back toward competing at full strength.
Flattened odds explained
Practically, flattening the odds removes the upside of ending the season with the absolute worst record. If the bottom 10 teams share identical lottery odds for the top pick, the marginal benefit of losing a few extra games evaporates. Proponents argue this will cut down on late-season roster moves and games where starters are sat purely to preserve draft positioning. Skeptics note that teams might still seek other routes to gain advantage, suggesting the league could layer tiers—for example, grouping teams into blocks such as 1-8, 9-10 and 11-18—to balance fairness and competitive incentive. The proposal would seek a middle ground that discourages tanking while still protecting the weakest teams in the league.
Implications for teams and timing
Should the Board of Governors approve reform on May 28, 2026, the change would signal a new strategic landscape for roster construction, minutes allocation and front-office planning. Coaches and executives would likely re-evaluate whether short-term sacrifice for a small increase in draft probability remains worthwhile. The league’s leadership, including the office of Commissioner Adam Silver, has framed the discussion as an effort to restore competitive honesty, and many general managers reportedly participated in a recent GM call to weigh options. That process reflects a recognition that the current system’s incentives are producing outcomes stakeholders want to discourage.
What to watch next
Beyond the vote, attention will turn to the specific numerical breakdowns and any transitional rules attached to a new lottery model. Even proponents concede that the mechanics—how many teams are included, whether tiering occurs, and how odds are assigned—will determine whether the reform meaningfully reduces tanking or merely shifts its forms. Fans, players and media will be watching how the league balances fairness for struggling franchises with the broader goal of ensuring every game matters. Whatever the Board decides on May 28, 2026, the conversation has already altered how teams think about losing and the value of draft positioning.
