Kyle McKeown

During the NBA GM meeting this week, one person suggested make the bottom three teams ineligible for the top picks entirely. The league, per multiple sources, found this to be way too extreme. But then another person on the call offered a softer version of the same concept: What if the bottom three teams just had slightly lower odds than the teams ranked four through 10? Not zero. Just a little less. Sources on the call say Adam Silver responded enthusiastically to this idea. Which speaks to the state of lottery reform. The 18 team/8% odds for the top 10 concept is simply still just the concept. The specifics of it will change by the time the league votes on it in late May. And adjustments — like this one — are still in heavy consideration. I think it’s brilliant. Under that structure, with the bottom three teams having slightly worse odds, there is no longer a single point in the standings where losing helps you. Tanking all the way to the bottom hurts you a bit. It’s not quite relegation that you’d see in the Premier League, but it’s the NBA’s own form that would punish being the worst in the league. And much like Premier League teams have entertaining games to prevent relegation, NBA teams would too. Picture two bad teams in late March, both within a game of the bottom three, both desperate to win. That's a win for the fans. Picture the front office of the Wizards doing the calculus on whether to shut down Trae Young and Anthony Davis and realizing that, actually, no, the vets need to go play, because falling in the standings is a real cost now, not a reward. That's a win for the sport. Picture Sacramento intentionally fouling Seth Curry late in a game, and the conversation around it shifting from "nefarious tanking" to "bad coaching." That's a win for the league. More on @YahooSports: