Can the NBA truly eradicate the most blatant forms of tanking? And just how dominant is Nikola Jokić this season? These questions are at the heart of today’s basketball conversation, and the answers might surprise you. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the league is exploring measures to curb tanking, some of these solutions might not address the root of the problem—and could even create new ones. Let’s dive in.
On March 25, with just two weeks left in the NBA regular season, the Washington Wizards face off against the Utah Jazz. Depending on the standings, this game could become a masterclass in strategic… ahem… underperformance. And this is the part most people miss: it’s not just about two teams vying for the top draft pick. Both franchises owe top-eight-protected first-round picks in the 2026 draft, and if they don’t finish among the four worst teams, they risk losing those picks entirely in the lottery. Talk about high stakes.
Here’s the kicker: these picks come with an expiration date. If Washington fails to convey its pick to New York this season, it downgrades to a second-rounder in 2026, plus another second-rounder in 2027. For the Jazz, the consequences are even harsher—if they don’t send their pick to Oklahoma City, it disappears entirely. No pick. No compensation. Just crickets.
This scenario highlights why the NBA is reportedly considering measures to reduce tanking. The three main proposals are:
- Limiting pick protections to either top-four or top-14 and beyond, effectively eliminating the kind of high-stakes tanking we’re seeing with the Wizards and Jazz.
- Preventing teams from drafting in the top four two years in a row—a move that feels like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted.
- Locking lottery positions after March 1, which might just shift tanking efforts earlier in the season rather than eliminating them.
Let’s unpack these. The March 1 lottery lock, for instance, seems like a solution in search of a problem. While we’ve seen egregious late-season tanking (think Portland Trail Blazers in 2022 or the Jazz in 2024), the flattened lottery odds in recent years have made this less of an issue. Plus, the variance in team schedules before and after March 1 could make this rule unfair to implement.
And here’s a thought-provoking question: Could locking lottery positions by March 1 simply encourage teams to tank earlier in the season, say, between the trade deadline and March 1? It’s a valid concern that deserves more discussion.
As for preventing back-to-back top-four picks, it’s hard not to think of the San Antonio Spurs, who landed in the top four three years in a row. But let’s be real—that took extraordinary luck. Changing the rule might feel fair, but it ignores the fact that teams with the worst records already have a 52.1% chance of picking in the top four. If you’re bad for multiple seasons, shouldn’t you have more than one shot at a top pick?
Here’s the part nobody talks about: if you remove four teams from the lottery, their odds get redistributed to the remaining teams. This could actually increase tanking incentives for those still in the running. Imagine if the 2023-24 season had played out knowing the Spurs, Hornets, and Blazers couldn’t pick in the top four despite having three of the five worst records. Teams like the Brooklyn Nets and Memphis Grizzlies, who played ethically, might have tanked early to boost their own odds.
But let’s circle back to the first proposal: limiting pick protections. This one’s a no-brainer. It directly addresses the most blatant form of tanking—teams losing on purpose to protect a draft pick. History is littered with examples, from the 2006 “Mark Madsen game” to the Warriors’ 2012 tank-a-thon and the Mavericks’ $750,000 fine in 2023. These aren’t speculative tanks; they’re calculated moves with guaranteed payoffs.
Implementing this rule wouldn’t just clean up the game—it could also simplify trades. Executives often get bogged down in haggling over protection details (top eight vs. top 10, etc.). A clear line between top-four and top-14 protections would streamline negotiations.
Now, onto Nikola Jokić. The man is having a season for the ages—until his recent knee injury, that is. After dropping 56 points, 16 rebounds, and 15 assists against Minnesota on Christmas, he’s on pace to shatter his own single-season PER record of 32.8. His current PER of 35.5 is otherworldly, and his true shooting percentage of 71.4% is absurd, especially considering the difficulty of his shots. Jokić is so dominant that even Shai Gilgeous-Alexander’s historic season pales in comparison.
But here’s the real question: Can Jokić sustain this level of play and cement his place among the all-time greats? At 30, he’s already in the conversation, but this season could elevate him to legendary status—if his knee cooperates.
Finally, let’s touch on the Toronto Raptors’ signing of Mo Bamba. On the surface, it seems odd for a team already over the luxury tax to add another big contract. But here’s the twist: Bamba’s deal is non-guaranteed, and he’ll likely be waived before the January 7 guarantee date. This allows the Raptors to sign him to a 10-day contract with a much smaller cap hit, minimizing their financial burden.
This move highlights the complexities of NBA contracts and how teams navigate the salary cap. It’s a reminder that every decision—no matter how small—has ripple effects. But does this kind of roster maneuvering detract from the spirit of competition? That’s a debate worth having.
So, what do you think? Can the NBA truly solve tanking, or are these measures just bandaids on a bullet wound? And is Nikola Jokić’s season the greatest we’ve ever seen? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments!
