- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NBA to adopt "relegation zone" to prevent tanking. 3 worst records lower lottery odds.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 4/28/26 at 6:16 pm
quote:
In this proposal, which will be voted on by league owners at the May 28 Board of Governors meeting, the teams with the three worst records would fall into the so-called "relegation" zone. They would receive only two lottery balls each. The seven remaining teams that miss the postseason entirely would receive three. The No. 9 and No. 10 seeds would receive two, and the loser of the No. 7 vs. No. 8 game would get one. As a tradeoff for receiving fewer lottery balls, the three worst teams in the NBA could pick no lower than No. 12. Everyone else could fall as far as No. 16
Bout time they try to stop rewarding intentional losses.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 6:51 pm to sgallo3
It still doesn’t address the root cause of teams sucking. Yeah it might incentivize teams to not be the worst in the league, but you are much better off getting 3 lottery balls than being the Suns fed to the OKC wolves. You’ll just see lower tier playoff teams try fall out.
This post was edited on 4/28/26 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 4/28/26 at 6:58 pm to sgallo3
Holy hell the NBA is such a joke.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:07 pm to sgallo3
It should be, they get worse odds to be #1, and #2, but they get essentially locked into #3, #4, and #5 since they still need good talent
And it creates an incentive to lose if you’re like the Pelicans and don’t have your pick
And it creates an incentive to lose if you’re like the Pelicans and don’t have your pick
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:12 pm to sgallo3
I don’t mind tanking. At least as a fan when your team is tanking you know through the temporary suffering that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Why do leagues want to remove that hope from the fans who support the teams who are currently awful?
Why would it make any difference if a team is purposely bad or accidentally bad? You’re always going to have bad teams, so what with this obsession with trying to make them slightly less bad? So to fans of terrible teams, the NBA will compound the suffering by stamping out the one thing they are still hanging on to.
Why would it make any difference if a team is purposely bad or accidentally bad? You’re always going to have bad teams, so what with this obsession with trying to make them slightly less bad? So to fans of terrible teams, the NBA will compound the suffering by stamping out the one thing they are still hanging on to.
This post was edited on 4/28/26 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:15 pm to TheWalrus
The way the game is played with worse teams getting higher picks will always incentivize tanking. One player can change a franchise.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:15 pm to sgallo3
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:18 pm to AHM21
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:18 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Why would it make any difference if a team is purposely bad or accidentally bad? You’re always going to have bad teams, so what with this obsession with trying to make them slightly less bad?
The current system doesnt award teams for being bad teams, it awards teams that pull their best players out of games to have a worse record than they would have. The jazz would have a lead late in games and take their best players out to lose. Their record is completely artificial.
The wizards were beating the warriors going into the 4th quarter so they took all their starters out and their bench played more minutes than starters.
That wasnt the wizards being the worse team that night, it was them forfeiting a win.
The teams were breaking the system rather than it fulfilling its actual intent.
If this punishes bad ownership, its still an improvement. Being bad shouldn't be incentivized.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:22 pm to sgallo3
What a pathetic and corrupt organization
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:25 pm to sgallo3
Sounds like the best fix. Although if you want to really cure tanking just give every team equal odds at picks 1 thru 5 regardless if they make the playoffs or not
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:25 pm to Madking
Yep flattening the odds just helps the NBA manipulate it even more. All such a joke. Teams like the Wiz, Pelicans, and Kings have been basically door mats for the league anyway.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:28 pm to UnluckyTiger
Wonder why other leagues don’t have this problem but they’ll never go that route because it’s too difficult to manipulate the outcomes.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:28 pm to sgallo3
The least talented teams now
Checks notes
Have less of a chance of adding better talent
Checks notes
Have less of a chance of adding better talent
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:29 pm to sgallo3
It would actually benefit the losers of the play in games too
you have no shot of winning it all, might as well just get a lotto ball. I’d lose the 7-8 match up on purpose for example.
This post was edited on 4/28/26 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:31 pm to sgallo3
Dumb
All lottery teams should just have 1 ball
Equal odds for all
All lottery teams should just have 1 ball
Equal odds for all
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:36 pm to Cosmo
Then teams will tank the play in game.
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:38 pm to sgallo3
Never thought we’d see another commish as trash as Bettman but Silver is really making him earn it
Posted on 4/28/26 at 7:40 pm to VA LSU fan
quote:
Then teams will tank the play in game.
Nope. Too much money to be made from playoff games. It’d never be a directive of ownership to forfeit the revenue that comes from home playoff games just to have 2 lotto balls that you’d be competing with 15 other teams for
Popular
Back to top


20










