Unquestionably, one of the biggest things about the upcoming 2026 NBA Draft is how strong the entire class is. At the top, the class possesses three incredibly talented prospects who can certainly change a franchise’s future. Not only that, but the rest of the draft is filled with tons of talent, even into the second round. With that in mind, the teams towards the bottom of each conference have clearly prioritized improving their draft position rather than gaining wins. Such tanking maneuvers have drawn ire from across the spectrum, including commissioner Adam Silver. In response to the tanking, Silver has discussed changing the rules surrounding the draft and tanking, hoping to dissuade teams from their current tanking practices. However, are Silver’s new anti-tanking proposals the right solution for the NBA Draft, or will they just create new problems?
NBA Draft: The Problems Of The New Anti-Tanking Proposals
What’s Been Reported
As reported by NBA insider Shams Charania, Commissioner Silver has spoken with the 30 general managers around the league about enacting new rules to fight tanking. This comes in response to the intensified tanking efforts of several teams in recent weeks. In an effort to “safeguard the integrity of the game”, Silver has proposed several rule changes to fix the tanking issues.
Multiple sources with knowledge of Thursday’s GM meeting as well as a late January Competition Committee meeting told ESPN that the following concepts have been discussed to curb tanking:
•First-round picks can be protected only top-4 or top-14+
•Lottery odds freeze at the… https://t.co/Vk2n1cSzde— Shams Charania (@ShamsCharania) February 19, 2026
To be clear, these particular proposals have not been formally adopted as of yet. Only discussion has taken place surrounding these proposed rule changes. However, Silver has declared that moves will be made to combat tanking. Dialogue surrounding the tanking efforts has increased, and something will change for next season. Regardless, it is time to break down the potential issues with each proposal.
Breaking Down The Major Issues Of Each Proposal
#1: First-Round Picks Can Be Protected Only Top-4 or Top-14+
The first of the listed rule changes proposes that pick protections for first-round picks can only protect the pick if it lands in the top four or top-14+. To be sure, the rule change wants to prevent teams from tanking to retain their pick, especially if their pick is in the lottery. Plus, it also gets rid of the confusion surrounding specific pick protections. However, it’s arguable that the opposite effect will happen with this proposal. Due to the fact that teams can only protect certain parts of their pick, it will only push teams to tank even harder to keep their pick. If a tanking team can only protect their pick if it lands in the top four, then they are even more incentivized to lose games to keep their pick.
#2: Lottery Odds Freeze At The Trade Deadline Or A Later Date
The second rule change of the list will freeze lottery odds at the trade deadline or a later date. This clearly wants to prevent the all-out tank races in the latter half of the season. The measures that tanking teams have performed to get a leg up on opposing teams have been blatantly embarrassing. Sitting healthy stars out for the remainder of the games has been the most egregious example of these measures. Something does need to change to prevent something like that.
Nevertheless, there is a problem with this proposal. Namely, freezing lottery odds at the trade deadline will only push the teams at the bottom to tank earlier in the season. Instead of seeing some of the tanking teams actually playing seriously to start an NBA season, they will all want to tank as early as possible. Considering that, this proposal would only exacerbate tanking even earlier in the season than what’s currently happening.
#3: No Longer Allowing Teams To Pick In The Top Four In Consecutive Years And/Or After Consecutive Bottom-Three Finishes
The third suggested rule change will prevent teams from being eligible to select in the top four in consecutive years. Furthermore, it will also possibly prevent teams from selecting in the top four if they have consecutive bottom-three finishes in their conference. Unquestionably, the purpose of this rule change is to prevent prolonged rebuilding periods for NBA teams. Additionally, it also aims to prevent the same teams from selecting top prospects multiple years in a row.
While the proposal will go a long way in preventing extended rebuilds, it ignores one simple truth. That truth being that those teams that will typically select top prospects in consecutive years are bad, and they need to get those talented prospects to fix their teams. This rule change will absolutely handicap the efforts of rebuilding teams in becoming a better team. Plus, in the off-years that teams will not be able to select high in the draft, they will simply be mediocre. They won’t have enough talent to be competitive, and they won’t even have the silver lining of getting a top-four pick to improve their team in those years. In all, this potential rule change will only punish the already-bad teams and prevent them from getting better.
#4: Teams Can’t Pick In The Top Four After Making The Conference Finals
The fourth proposal stipulates that teams that make the conference finals won’t be able to select in the top four. While this rule change may prevent contenders from gaining even more talent, it’s still a flawed rule. In particular, the rule change is flawed because it can unnecessarily punish conference finals teams that become bad out of no fault of their own.
For example, this year’s Indiana Pacers team lost Tyrese Haliburton in the game seven of the Finals due to a torn Achilles. That injury effectively made this season a lost year for them. If the rule change had been in place this year, then Indiana would be doubly punished. Not only would they lose their star player for a year, but they wouldn’t even have a silver lining. Another example would be the Cleveland Cavaliers after 2018. They make the Finals with LeBron James, but he leaves in free agency that summer. They are another team that would be punished by the rule change if it existed at that time. Overall, it is a flawed rule that will punish innocent teams.
#5: Lottery Odds Allocated Based On Two-Year Records
The fifth potential rule change wants to allocate lottery odds based on two-year records. The issue with this rule change is simply that it, like the previous rule change, would unnecessarily punish teams. If a team suddenly finds itself at the bottom of the standings after a great previous year, then it would be punished for it. They will find themselves with lower lottery odds, even if that team became bad for an uncontrollable reason. This particular rule change would only complicate things and have major negative consequences.
#6: Lottery Extended To Include All Play-In Teams
One of the simpler potential rule changes is extending the lottery to include play-in teams. It will dilute the pool of teams that can potentially draft in the top four. However, one issue with the change is how advantageous it will be for a play-in team. It may cause teams that hover around the sixth or fifth seeds to intentionally fall into the play-in. If a team does not think they have a chance to contend, they can tank a few games to become a play-in team to gain that benefit. It may not be a huge issue, but there is a potential problem with the rule change.
#7: Flatten Lottery Odds For All Lottery Teams
The last of the potential rule changes proposes that the lottery odds are flattened for all lottery teams. Of course, the purpose of this rule change is to prevent teams from purposefully losing games to increase their lottery odds. The current lottery odds are one example of flattened odds. While it might prevent more blatant tanking, two problems arise with it. The first issue is that flattening the odds would make it more difficult for the worst teams to get better. The second issue is that it would cause more teams to try to tank into the lottery. This rule change can create even more problems than it solves.
Featured Image: Kirby Lee-Imagn Images
