00:00Suns fans, the league is moving closer to a major shift in how draft lottery odds are
00:05distributed, and the proposed 3-2-1 lottery system could fundamentally change the way
00:10struggling teams approach the final months of the season. Here's a detailed breakdown of what's on
00:14the table, how it would work, and what it means for the future of roster building across the NBA.
00:20The NBA took a significant step Tuesday toward a slightly expanded 16-team lottery designed to
00:25flatten the odds of landing the no-1 overall pick and aggressively discourage tanking by
00:31dramatically reducing the chances for the clubs that finish with the three worst records,
00:35known as the 3-2-1 lottery proposal. The plan was reviewed by the league's general managers and
00:41will undergo further discussion before it reaches the board of governors for a final vote that is
00:45expected next month. Importantly, this would not alter the current format for the upcoming draft
00:50lottery. On May 10, which is likely to be the last under the existing system, the new rules
00:55would take effect next year. The proposal will be discussed again at a competition committee
01:00meeting on Thursday. It would expand the lottery field, from 14 to 16 teams, and create an incentive
01:07to win even for franchises no longer in contention for play-in or play-off berths. Under this structure,
01:13all 16 teams would receive between 1 and 3 lottery balls. Hence a 3-2-1 label. And the distribution
01:21breaks down as follows. The losers of the no, 7 vs. no, 8 play-in games in each conference would
01:28each
01:28receive one lottery ball. The no, 9 and no. 10 seeds entering the play-in tournament would each
01:35receive two lottery balls. The remaining 10 teams that miss both the playoffs and the play-in would
01:41each receive three lottery balls, with a critical exception. The three teams, with the worst records,
01:47those clubs would face draft relegation and lose one of their three balls, a measure the NBA hopes
01:53will eliminate the incentive to lose as many games as possible in pursuit of the worst record.
01:58The practice, commonly referred to as tanking, has been rewarded under the current system with more
02:05favorable lottery odds. The league was furious this season over how blatantly some teams prioritize
02:11their draft positioning over winning, going so far as to fine the Utah Jazz $500,000 for conduct detrimental
02:19to the league, after two top players were held out of the fourth quarter of a pair of games,
02:24one of which the Jazz actually won. A clear race to the bottom unfolded this season, with five teams,
02:30Washington, Indiana, Utah, Memphis and Brooklyn, all posting winning percentages below 180 after the
02:38all-star break, never before in NBA history have so many teams lost at that rate.
02:44After the break, the incentives are not necessarily matched here, NBA commissioner Adam Silver said in
02:50February, addressing the link between the worst records and the best lottery odds.
02:54I think the tradition in sports where the worst performing team receives the first pick from their
02:59partners, when any economist comes and looks at our system, they always point out you have the
03:04incentives backwards there. That doesn't necessarily make sense, but some retakes, but three, and that's
03:10certain such and such some. Things though the silver has vowed that the league, which has revised the
03:15lottery system multiple times over the past decades, will forcefully address the tanking issue before next
03:21year, odds of winning under the proposal. The teams that finish with the three worst records would each
03:26have a 5,4% chance of securing the no, one pick and could fall no lower than no, 12
03:33in the draft
03:33order. The best odds of winning the no, one pick however, would belong to, the other seven teams
03:39that miss the play-in and playoffs, with each of those clubs, holding an 8,1% chance at the
03:45top
03:45selection. The no, 9 and no, 10 play-in seeds would also have a 5,4% chance, while the
03:52losers of the
03:52no, 7 vs. no, 8 play-in games would each have a 2,7% chance, major changes compared to
04:00the current
04:00system. This season, the three worst teams, Washington, Indiana and Brooklyn, each hold a
04:0614% chance at the no, one pick, and are guaranteed a top-seven selection. In Indiana's case, if the
04:13Pacers land the fifth or sixth pick, that selection would convey to the Los Angeles Clippers due to a
04:18previous trade. Under the proposed system, those same teams would see their odds drop to 5,4% and
04:25could slide as far as 12th in the first round. There would be a 72% probability that those clubs
04:31fall outside the top five entirely. This is a decision that needs to be made at the ownership
04:36level, Silver said earlier this year. It has business implications, has basketball implications,
04:42has integrity implications for the league. It's one that we take very seriously. We are going to fix it.
04:47Full stop. I want to say that directly to our fans.
04:51Incentives need to be fixed. We will fix them. I'm looking forward to that.
04:56Other proposed changes within the 3-2-1 plan. No team would be allowed to win back-to-back.
05:02No one picks or have three consecutive picks inside the top five. No protections in trades would be
05:10permitted for picks falling between NOS 12 and 15. The league would receive expanded disciplinary
05:17authority to combat tanking, including the ability to lower a team's lottery odds or even alter its
05:24draft position as a penalty. If approved, the plan would sunset after the 2029 draft,
05:31requiring the Board of Governors to vote again to either continue the system or make additional
05:35changes. So, Sun's faithful. As the NBA pushes to restore competitive integrity across all 82 games,
05:42how do you feel about a system that rewards late-season effort and punishes the most extreme
05:46losing? Would a flattened lottery make the league healthier, or should the teams with the very worst
05:51record still have the best shot at a franchise-altering prospect?
Comments