Digging Into NBA Expansion, How to Fix Tanking and Whether the 65-Game Rule Works

Viva Las Vegas, or at least that’s what Adam Silver could have said when the NBA commissioner announced the league was moving forward with plans to bring franchises to Las Vegas and back to Seattle, which lost the then-SuperSonics to Oklahoma City nearly two decades ago. After years of flirting with expansion the NBA finally seems ready to fully embrace it. As, I’m guessing, are the two teams who will be shifted to the Eastern Conference.

Expansion was not the only issue on the agenda at Wednesday’s Board of Governors meeting. A look at some of the key issues Silver addressed, along with my spin on what it all means.

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Adam Silver statement: Just concluded two days of meetings with our Board of Governors. Bunch of issues were on the agenda. First and foremost, I think you all know at this point that the board voted to explore expansion in Las Vegas and Seattle. I’m excited about that opportunity … I think two markets with deep basketball roots and deep connections to the NBA. We’re excited to begin that process.

Mannix’s take: Expansion has always been inevitable, and while the NBA has done its best to message that there were several cities under consideration, only two (Las Vegas and Seattle) have ever really been in play. There is a long NBA history in Seattle (here come the Sonics) and the league has been eager to plant its flag in Vegas, often grumbling behind the scenes about being the last of the four major sports leagues in. Silver expects a firm decision on expansion to come before the end of 2026, with multiple groups from each city expected to submit bids.

Financially, the short-term gain is considerable. The NBA is anticipating expansion fees between $7 billion to $10 billion, sources familiar with the league’s thinking tells Sports Illustrated. That’s a considerable amount of cash that will flow onto the balance sheets of the 30 NBA teams.

“Certainly with our bankers we have a sense of where we think that value exists,” said Silver. “At the end of the day the marketplace will determine that.”

Still, fears about talent dilution are real. Nearly a third of the league has shown little interest in winning games since the All-Star break, some even longer. And while Silver is right to note those teams may not be as bad as their record suggests—what would Washington be with Anthony Davis and Trae Young, Dallas with Kyrie Irving, Indiana with Tyrese Haliburton, etc.—adding two franchises would invariably water down the league and introduce two new teams who will need four to five years to be competitive.

That will threaten to make the regular season even less relevant, which is a criticism the NBA can’t seem to shake. And if you’re looking for a financial reason not to expand, look no further. Broadcast rights holders generally don’t like it when the games they are paying for lose value, and while the NBA is in the first year of its 11-year, $77 billion deal with NBC, Disney and Amazon, it’s never too early to start thinking about the next one. And you know Silver is.

Silver statement: I would say virtually everything we covered at the board meeting was very positive. One topic not so positive, that’s ongoing tanking issues in the league. We had a lengthy conversation about the issue … I think this is a decision that needs to be made at the ownership level. It has business implications, has basketball implications, has integrity implications for the league. It’s one that we take very seriously. We are going to fix it, full stop. I want to say that directly to our fans.

Mannix’s take: No surprise to hear Silver come out aggressively for new rules to curb tanking, an issue that has been a huge problem for the league this season. The question is, How? I’m told the league doesn’t have an answer to that question yet, though Silver noted there would be an emergency Board of Governors meeting in May—likely sometime around the draft lottery—where they would vote on whatever changes they come up with.

You know most of them. Removing draft protections, changing odds, banning teams from drafting in the top four two years in a row. Other suggestions have included locking in lottery odds at an earlier date or incentivizing wins after the All-Star break, all more radical than the tweaks the NBA has made in recent years. Said Silver, “We need to do something more extreme than we did with those incremental changes.”

There’s another solution: Abolish the lottery altogether. Silver can tout trades and free agency as team building tools but any general manager will tell you the draft is the most practical way to build a winner. Boston’s stars (Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown) were high lottery picks. Oklahoma City drafted Chet Holmgren after a down year. The Spurs have a would-be dynasty thanks to three straight drafts that resulted in Victor Wembanyama, Stephon Castle and Dylan Harper.

If nothing else, killing the draft will solve that problem. There will need to be protections built in, like no team being able to draft in the top four two years in a row. Granted, it won’t solve tanking. But the likelihood is nothing will. At least by abolishing the draft, the worst teams will get a shot at the best players. And (hopefully) never have to tank again.

Silver’s statement: It’s only the third year now that the 65-game rule has been put in effect. A few years ago when I was standing in front of all of you, you weren’t asking me about tanking, you were asking me about load management. You were saying, What in the world are you going to do about the fact that star players aren’t playing enough games?

We did a number of things. One of the things we did in agreement with the players association was to put in place a 65-game rule, to ensure to be eligible for MVP or All-NBA, All-Defensive, you needed to play those 65 games. We always knew when there’s a line you draw that somebody’s going to fall on the other side of that line. It may feel unfair in that particular instance. Let’s see what happens at the end of this year.

Mannix’s take: The NBA’s 65-game rule—which, as a refresher, is the threshold players have to meet to qualify for major awards, including All-NBA—has been under attack all season, with the NBA players union taking its whacks this week, declaring in response to the likelihood that Cade Cunningham would finish the season below the 65-game line, removing him from consideration of a well-deserved spot on an All-NBA team, that the rule needed to be “abolished or reformed.”

While the union’s scorching statement was a little eye-rolling—the 65-game rule was collectively bargained, which means the players agreed to it, with several stars publicly supporting it in recent years—the rule should be revisited. Not the existence of a threshold, which does prevent teams from going too far with load management. But the number of games it requires. Brown suggested this week that 62 was a good number. I’d go as far down as 58, which is the minimum to be eligible to win statistical titles.

Silver’s statement: We haven’t had those discussions yet with the WNBA board. I would only say [WNBA commissioner] Cathy [Engelbert] has done a fantastic job since she’s come to the WNBA. Obviously, you could see just in the results. I haven’t had those discussions recently with Cathy, even in terms of her future plans, how long she wants to do this. She had a storied career before she came to the WNBA as the CEO of Deloitte. I’d only say the results speak for themselves. I am very happy, I know ownership is very happy, with where things stand in the WNBA.

Mannix’s take: I have no position on Cathy Engelbert whatsoever, except to say I am glad the WNBA is back and would they please put a freaking team in Boston.

More NBA From Sports Illustrated

Listen to SI’s NBA podcast, Open Floor, below or on Apple and Spotify. Watch the show on SI’s YouTube channel.