The issue of tanking in the NBA has lingered for years, shaping how teams approach losing seasons. While rebuilding is a natural part of professional sports, tanking crosses a line that leaves fans frustrated and raises questions about fairness. And the NBA has once again floated proposals to curb the practice that either won’t work or don’t address the root causes. But I’m here to help the NBA with the following ideas that would actually address the scourge of tanking in professional basketball.
What Is Tanking In the NBA?
Tanking in the NBA is the deliberate act of losing games to improve draft positioning. The league rewards teams with worse records by giving them higher chances of securing top draft picks. Since elite young talent can transform a franchise, struggling teams often see losing as an investment in the future. Of course, the players on the court and the coaches aren’t actively trying to lose games. But tanking is the practice of an organization putting those players and coaches in positions to win fewer games.
This approach can take several forms. Some teams trade away their best players for draft picks, while others rest key contributors for extended periods. In extreme cases, organizations construct rosters that are clearly not built to win in the short term, prioritizing the long-term benefits of tanking. While no team openly admits to tanking, the patterns are easy to spot for anyone paying attention.
The draft lottery was designed to discourage outright losing by introducing randomness, but it has not eliminated the incentive. Even with flattened odds, finishing near the bottom of the league standings still improves a team’s chances. As long as the system rewards losing in any capacity, teams will find ways to take advantage of it.
Why Does Anyone Care About Tanking?
Tanking may seem like a logical business decision from a front office perspective, but it carries negative consequences. The effects reach fans, players, broadcasters, and even industries connected to the league. At its worst, tanking erodes trust in the product and makes games feel less meaningful.
Entertainment Value
The NBA thrives on excitement. Fans expect effort, competitiveness, and unpredictability. Tanking undermines all three. When teams prioritize losing, games become less engaging. Star players may sit out, lineups change frequently, and the intensity drops. For viewers, this leads to a less satisfying experience.
Consider a late-season game between two teams near the bottom of the standings. Instead of a hard-fought contest, it often feels like a showcase for fringe players. While those players deserve opportunities, the lack of urgency can make the game feel disconnected from the broader season. Fans notice when teams are not fully committed to winning, and it affects how they view the league as a whole. It also discourages fans from buying tickets to go to games that are seen as meaningless late in the year.
Over time, this can lead to declining interest. Casual fans may tune out, while dedicated supporters grow frustrated. The NBA has worked hard to build a global audience, and tanking risks undermining that progress.
NBA Betting
Sports betting has become a major part of the NBA’s ecosystem, with legal US sportsbooks partnering with the league and many of its teams. Bettors rely on consistency, transparency, and effort to make informed decisions. Tanking introduces uncertainty that goes beyond normal game-to-game variance.
When a team unexpectedly rests multiple starters or shifts its approach without clear reasoning, it disrupts betting markets. Lines can swing dramatically, and bettors may feel that they are not getting a fair opportunity to assess games. This unpredictability can discourage participation and damage confidence in the recreational activity of sports betting.
Ways to Stop Tanking That Would Actually Work
Fixing tanking requires more than minor adjustments. Incremental changes have not solved the problem, so it may be time to consider ideas that challenge traditional structures. The following proposals offer potential paths forward, each with its own strengths and drawbacks.
Promotion and Relegation
Promotion and relegation are systems used in many international sports leagues such as soccer, where teams move between divisions based on performance. Applying this concept to the NBA would represent a major shift, but it could eliminate the incentive to lose.
Under this system, the worst teams would face the possibility of being moved to a lower division, while top teams from that lower division would earn promotion. The threat of relegation would create a strong incentive to remain competitive throughout the season.
However, there are significant obstacles. The NBA would need to establish a second division with viable teams, infrastructure, and financial backing. Revenue differences between divisions could create disparities, and owners may resist a system that introduces risk to their investments. But if the goal is maintaining competitive balance and eliminating tanking is the goal, we need to get comfortable with demanding that owners stop having guaranteed profits and being incentivized to lose games on purpose.
Fewer Regular-Season Games
The NBA currently plays 82 regular-season games, a number that has remained unchanged for decades. Reducing the schedule could help address tanking by increasing the importance of each game.
With fewer games, every win and loss would carry greater weight. Teams would have less room to experiment or sacrifice games for long-term positioning. There would also be fewer games for teams to separate themselves in the standings, as we have seen in the 2025-26 season where the Oklahoma City Thunder and Washington Wizards were separated by 47 games. This could lead to more consistent effort and fewer situations where teams intentionally rest players for extended stretches.
There are trade-offs to consider. Fewer games could mean less revenue from ticket sales and broadcasting deals. But again, putting ownership’s profits above the quality of competition is how we got here in the first place. Increased viewership and stronger fan interest could offset some of these losses as well. Reducing the number of games would not eliminate tanking entirely, but it could make it less appealing. When every game matters more, the cost of losing intentionally becomes harder to justify.
Eliminate the Draft Entirely
Getting rid of the NBA Draft entirely would also help to eliminate the practice of losing on purpose for better draft position. Instead of teams drafting first-year players, it would be great if teams were able to sign rookies as free agents and have to make those transactions work within their respective salary caps without some kind of rookie wage cap beyond the league’s maximum contract values. That way rookie acquisitions were unrelated to wins and losses, and tied to salary cap space instead.
Again, this would be a proposal that makes things harder on the owners of the teams, to the benefit of everyone else. For that reason, it would likely never happen. But if the goal is to fix the systemic problems with the NBA, it would be a good way forward.
Ultimately, fixing tanking in the NBA will require a combination of ideas rather than a single solution. The league must balance competitive integrity, financial stability, and fan satisfaction. Each of the proposals discussed here offers a different angle, and their effectiveness would depend on how they are implemented.
The goal is simple. Every game should matter, every team should compete, and every fan should feel that their investment of time and money is worthwhile. Achieving that goal will not be easy, but it is essential for the long-term health of the league. Tanking may never disappear entirely, but with the right changes, it can be reduced to a point where it no longer defines the conversation.
More NBA Picks
