written by Contributor Hodari P. T. Brown
The NBA’s long-running battle with tanking is once again front and center.
Recently, the Utah Jazz and the Indiana Pacers were fined for sitting healthy players during critical fourth-quarter stretches of regular-season games before All-Star Weekend. The perception was clear: positioning for the draft lottery mattered more than winning that night.
For Utah, the strategy worked in one game. In another, it backfired and the Jazz won anyway. That irony underscores the complicated nature of tanking. You can attempt to lose strategically, but outcomes are never guaranteed.
Still, the issue forced Commissioner Adam Silver to spend much of All-Star Weekend answering questions about competitive integrity and the league’s overall product.
The reality is this: tanking is not new. It has been embedded in the league’s structure for decades.
Tanking Is Not a Modern Invention
The most obvious modern example is the Philadelphia 76ers and their infamous “Trust the Process” era. Over multiple seasons, the franchise accumulated top-five picks, including several number-one selections. That stretch produced players such as Markelle Fultz, Ben Simmons, Joel Embiid, Nerlens Noel, and Jahlil Okafor.
Years earlier, the franchise now known as the Oklahoma City Thunder, formerly the Seattle SuperSonics, endured its own lottery-heavy rebuild. That process landed generational talents such as Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden. Those picks ultimately carried the franchise to the NBA Finals more than a decade ago.
The draft lottery exists precisely because the league understands that struggling teams need access to elite young talent. Without it, small-market teams would rarely acquire superstars unless they drafted them or made a rare blockbuster trade. Free agency, given the realities of the salary cap and luxury tax, rarely favors smaller markets.
So the league faces a paradox. The very system designed to create competitive balance can incentivize losing.
The Real Issue: Development, Not Just Draft Position
Blaming tanking alone oversimplifies the problem. The deeper issue is talent development and organizational patience.
Many franchises cycle through coaches, front-office leaders, and young players without establishing continuity. A top-three draft pick is not a guarantee of success. The 76ers’ process produced an MVP in Embiid, but it also produced high picks that did not become franchise cornerstones.
Sustainable success requires:
• Strong player development infrastructure
• Veteran leadership in the locker room
• Stable coaching philosophies
• A culture that prioritizes growth over quick fixes
Teams that draft well but fail to develop talent often find themselves right back in the lottery a few years later.
Why Financial Penalties Do Not Work
Some argue that the NBA should fine teams more aggressively or restrict revenue sharing. The problem is that financial penalties rarely hurt billionaire ownership groups. Instead, the burden can trickle down to lower-level staff, basketball operations employees, and community-facing personnel.
That does not fix the product on the floor. It also does not help fans who are paying full price for tickets, concessions, and streaming packages only to see healthy players sit in winnable games.
If competitive integrity matters, solutions must directly affect basketball outcomes, not accounting sheets.
Solutions That Benefit Fans
If the league truly wants to address tanking in a way that protects fans, several structural reforms could be considered.
1. Draft Position Penalties for Non-Competitive Behavior
If a team is found to be intentionally sitting healthy players without legitimate medical justification, the league could:
• Drop that team to the final position in its draft tier
• Remove second-round picks
• Freeze lottery odds at the lowest percentage
This directly impacts basketball operations and future flexibility, not just finances.
2. Competitive Floor Requirements
The league could establish minimum participation standards for healthy core players, especially in nationally televised games. If a team fails to meet those standards without valid medical documentation, draft penalties would automatically apply.
3. Lottery Reform Based on Multi-Year Performance
Instead of rewarding a single bad season, lottery odds could factor in multi-year competitiveness. A franchise that repeatedly finishes at the bottom without measurable progress could see diminishing lottery returns.
This would reward teams that are rebuilding in good faith while discouraging prolonged tanking.
4. Fan Restitution Measures
If a team rests multiple healthy starters in a non-back-to-back situation, fans in attendance could receive:
• Ticket credits
• Merchandise vouchers
• Future game discounts
Protecting the fan experience reinforces accountability.
5. Development Incentives
Create cap exceptions or additional roster flexibility for teams that successfully develop players drafted outside the lottery. Reward smart scouting and coaching, not just losing.
The League Cannot Eliminate Tanking, But It Can Shift Incentives
The NBA cannot completely eliminate tanking. As long as draft positioning matters and championships are the ultimate goal, struggling teams will weigh short-term losses against long-term gain.
However, the league can shift incentives so that deliberate non-competitiveness carries real basketball consequences.
Competitive balance is essential. Small-market teams need access to elite talent. But fans deserve honest effort every night.
The goal should not be to punish rebuilding. The goal should be to punish indifference.
If a team is rebuilding responsibly, developing its young core, and competing hard despite losses, that is part of the game. If a team is clearly manipulating lineups to lose, the draft board should reflect that choice.
At the end of the day, the NBA’s product is built on trust between the league, its players, and its fans. Protecting that trust is worth more than protecting a lottery strategy.
