Planet Money vs. the NBA’s tanking problem

Summary of Planet Money vs. the NBA’s tanking problem

by NPR

30m•March 6, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of Planet Money vs. the NBA’s tanking problem

This Planet Money episode (NPR) examines why NBA teams intentionally lose late-season games (“tanking”), traces the history of draft rules that created those incentives, and evaluates three concrete proposals to reduce or eliminate tanking. Guests include NBA analyst Zach Lowe, PWHL hockey executive and Hockey Hall of Famer Jayna Hefford, and World Cup champion Sam Mewis. The episode frames the issue as an incentives problem and weighs trade-offs of each reform from the perspectives of leagues, teams, fans, and players.

Key takeaways

  • Tanking is a rational response to draft rules that reward worse records with better draft position; a single superstar in basketball can change a franchise, so high draft picks are extremely valuable.
  • The NBA has tinkered with draft rules for decades (reverse-order draft → lottery → weighted odds → flattened odds in 2019), but every change creates new trade-offs.
  • Three major reform ideas:
    • Draft Wheel: completely disconnects record from draft slot by rotating pre-set picks among teams.
    • Gold Plan (used by the PWHL): after teams are eliminated from playoff contention, their subsequent games count toward earning the highest draft pick—so eliminated teams are incentivized to win.
    • Abolish the draft / open market (as the NWSL experimented): players negotiate directly with teams, removing draft-based rewards for losing.
  • There is no perfect fix—each option shifts benefits and harms among small-market teams, big-market teams, fans, and players.
  • The NBA Board of Governors is actively discussing solutions; meaningful change is likely, but probably incremental.

Background: how we got here (draft history and incentives)

  • Original system (1960s–70s): reverse-order drafts—worst teams pick earlier to promote parity.
  • 1984 Rockets case: Houston sat players to lose intentionally and landed Hakeem Olajuwon, highlighting the problem and prompting reform.
  • Lottery introduced to add randomness and reduce incentives to lose intentionally.
  • Subsequent adjustments:
    • 1987: only top three picks by lottery.
    • 1990 & 1994: weighted lottery to favor worse teams (increase hope).
    • 1996: reduced odds somewhat.
    • 2019: flattened odds, increased lottery picks from 3 to 4; worst team’s chance at #1 dropped from ~25% to ~14%—a move designed to discourage extreme tanking.
  • Result: lottery reduced obvious end-of-season tanking but made it harder for truly bad teams to reliably get transformative picks; yet when a perceived superstar class emerges, teams still find tanking attractive.

The three proposals and how each works

1) Draft Wheel

  • Mechanic: Assign each team to a spoke on a 30-position wheel; each year teams rotate to the next spoke. Draft order is predetermined by spokes, not season record.
  • Pros:
    • Eliminates the incentive to lose because season record doesn’t affect draft slot.
    • Guarantees each team periodic access to high picks (over 30 years, every team moves through all slots).
  • Cons:
    • Could trap legitimately bad teams without immediate help.
    • Small-market owners fear losing their best lever to attract stars.
    • Requires broad league buy-in (3/4 of teams) and is politically difficult.

2) Gold Plan (PWHL example)

  • Mechanic: Once a team is mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, subsequent wins earn draft advantage. The eliminated team with the most points after elimination gets the top pick.
  • Pros:
    • Keeps eliminated teams incentivized to compete late in season (better fan experience).
    • Prevents teams from tanking late in the season because wins become valuable.
  • Cons:
    • Teams could still tank early in the year and only “turn on” winning once eliminated—so partial gaming remains possible.
    • A team that is perpetually bad might struggle to improve if they never secure the top pick under this scheme.

3) Abolish the draft / open market (NWSL model)

  • Mechanic: Remove the draft; incoming players negotiate directly with teams. Salary cap or roster rules can limit pure wealth advantage.
  • Pros:
    • Eliminates any draft-based incentive to lose—teams compete for talent on price, development environment, and culture.
    • Increases player autonomy and fit (important for young players’ welfare and retention).
  • Cons:
    • Wealthier owners could dominate talent acquisition, widening competitive imbalance.
    • Small-market teams must build attractive development and culture to compete.
    • Removes the guaranteed pathway by which worst teams can get top young talent.

Notable quotes and perspectives

  • Adam Silver (NBA Commissioner): “Are we seeing behavior that is worse this year than we seen in recent memory? Yes.” (League is “considering every possible remedy.”)
  • Zach Lowe (NBA analyst): “If your draft pick had nothing to do with how bad your record was, there would be no reason to intentionally lose games.”
  • Jayna Hefford (PWHL exec): Gold Plan keeps fans engaged and incentivizes teams to keep competing after elimination.
  • Sam Mewis (former pro / NWSL commentator): Eliminating the draft can give players agency, improve player-club fit, and still allow smaller clubs to compete via culture and environment—though wealthier clubs will have advantages.

Pros/cons summary (one-line)

  • Draft Wheel: strongest anti-tanking deterrent; risks trapping bad teams and political resistance.
  • Gold Plan: preserves competitive incentives for eliminated teams and fan engagement; still vulnerable to early-season tanking and may disadvantage chronically weak teams.
  • Abolish Draft: maximizes player autonomy and removes draft-based tanking; could increase inequality from wealthy teams buying talent.

Recommendation and likely outcome

  • The core problem is an incentives mismatch: as long as draft position rewards poor records, teams will find ways to exploit it.
  • Radical solutions (wheel or no-draft) would most directly eliminate tanking, but are politically and practically challenging.
  • The NBA is expected to take action, likely via incremental changes that try to balance parity, fan experience, and owners’ incentives rather than immediate abolition of the draft.

If you only read one thing

Tanking exists because draft rules make losing valuable. Fixes fall into three categories—break the link entirely (draft wheel), change what winning means after elimination (Gold Plan), or remove the draft itself (open market)—and each trades off competitive balance, fan experience, and player welfare in different ways. The NBA is actively exploring reforms, but expect gradual, negotiated change rather than a single dramatic solution.

Credits and further listening

  • Episode: Planet Money — “Planet Money vs. the NBA’s tanking problem” (NPR)
  • Guests mentioned: Zach Lowe, Jayna Hefford, Sam Mewis
  • Historical reference: 1984 Houston Rockets tanking that led to Hakeem Olajuwon selection
  • For direct examples and fan reactions, the episode links several social-media clips referenced in the credits.