The NBA introduced three elaborate proposals aimed at deterring intentional losing to its executive council on Wednesday. These concepts were part of this week’s gatherings in New York, and alterations are anticipated for each before an official endorsement in May, according to reports from ESPN’s Shams Charania.
Each of the three propositions represents a significant shift from the league’s existing framework. They share a unifying feature: integrating teams that reach the playoffs into the draft lottery mechanism. Beyond this shared element, their structures vary considerably.
As per the initial proposition, reports indicate that 18 teams — comprising the 10 lowest-ranked squads that fail to reach the play-in competition, alongside the eight that secure berths in it — would all participate in the draft lottery, Charania learned.
The 10 teams at the bottom would each possess a uniform 8% probability of advancing in the lottery. The residual 20% of the odds would be distributed among the eight play-in teams, in a decreasing sequence from 11th through 18th position.
Within this format, all 18 positions would be determined through the lottery process.
In the subsequent proposition, Charania’s sources reveal that 22 teams — specifically, the 10 lowest-ranked teams missing the play-in event, the eight that qualify for it, and the four playoff teams eliminated in the initial round — would be part of the lottery pool. These teams would be ordered based on their performance across a two-year period. This method of determining team standings by their record over the preceding two campaigns mirrors the WNBA’s lottery system.
With this framework, every team would be required to achieve a baseline victory count each season, thereby reducing the incentive to intentionally underperform in every possible game. For instance, if the minimum floor for a single campaign was 20 victories, a team that posted a 14-68 record would be considered 20-62 for draft selection considerations. Furthermore, if a team secures 40 victories one season and 20 in the following campaign, it would enter the lottery with an average of 30 wins.
Under this specific system, the initial four selections would be determined via the lottery, akin to the present method.
The final proposition introduces a “5 by 5” approach, as reported by Charania’s sources. In this scheme, the same 18 teams identified in the first proposal — the 10 lowest-ranked that fail to qualify for the play-in, plus the eight that participate — would be included in the lottery. The squads with the five poorest performances would then all have identical probabilities, with them decreasing subsequently, and a selection process would occur for each of the initial five picks in the draft.
Once those five selections are made, a subsequent lottery round would be held for the other 13 squads. Should any of the teams with the five poorest performances fail to secure one of those top five spots — similar to last season, when the teams with the first (the Utah Jazz), second (Washington Wizards), and fourth (New Orleans Pelicans) worst records respectively dropped to 5th, 6th, and 7th — the lowest possible position they could attain in the subsequent lottery selection would be 10th. This measure aims to hinder a poorly performing team from dropping excessively in the draft order.
Over the upcoming weeks, proprietors are anticipated to deliberate on the elaborate proposals with their individual team management teams in sports management departments. The goal is to more thoroughly comprehend the possible repercussions and unforeseen outcomes. Executive members, team presidents, and general managers are expected to maintain a continuous discussion with the central administration regarding these concepts and any alterations to them prior to May’s ballot.
The NBA commenced devising alterations to counter intentional losing as early as December. However, the fresh proposals exclude prior notions from that time, such as restricting draft pick safeguards in trades and fixing lottery probabilities at a specific juncture.
During his media briefing at the culmination of this week’s gatherings in Manhattan on Wednesday, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver articulated unambiguously that circumstances are poised to change. This follows the league’s period of facing substantial censure this season due to teams avidly pursuing one of the prime positions in what is considered an exceptionally talented 2026 NBA draft class. Silver also affirmed that the motivational framework for teams was “unequivocally” set to be modified for the upcoming campaign.
“I do think in the end this is a determination requiring proprietor input,” Silver stated. “It carries financial ramifications, on-court consequences, and consequences for the league’s reputation and fairness.”
“So it’s one that we regard with utmost gravity, and we are going to rectify the situation. Period.”
In light of this, the fact that the NBA is convening an extraordinary executive council assembly in May serves as an indicator of the gravity the league assigns to effectively addressing the issue. Routine gatherings occur at the conclusion of the regular campaign in late March or early April, at the start of the fresh campaign in either September or October, and annually in July in Las Vegas during Summer League. Therefore, holding a distinct assembly to accomplish this is an exceptionally uncommon occurrence that seldom transpires.
Nonetheless, Silver conceded on Wednesday that there isn’t a straightforward remedy to the problem — and even hinted that further modifications could arise in subsequent labor negotiations with the players’ union, even though the existing collective bargaining agreement extends until the decade’s conclusion.
“There is a facet of squad construction known as an authentic reconstruction, a principled retooling,” Silver remarked. 
”The current challenge we face these days is that it’s become nearly indistinguishable to differentiate between the intentional losing strategy and a rebuild.”
“There’s such a nuance to this when motivations diverge, when we’re now delving into coaching choices regarding team rosters and player rotations, ailments, medical professionals consulting, player discomfort thresholds. My perception is that when I say address immediately, yes, we need to undertake something more drastic than we did with those gradual adjustments in the previous four instances [we’ve made changes].”