We’re at that point in the season when the Seattle Kraken are playing games that no longer have playoff implications. I still enjoy tuning in, but it’s undeniably more fun when they win or battle hard in close contests.
The decreasing importance of the games got us at Sound Of Hockey thinking about how to prevent tanking in the NHL—the act of deliberately icing a subpar roster in hopes of losing and landing a higher draft pick.
Let’s walk through the pros and cons of tanking, and explore some ideas to prevent it.
NHL Entry Draft
Prior to the 1995-96 season, draft position was solely based on the previous season’s standings. The last-place team automatically got the first pick, effectively rewarding teams for tanking. So in 1995, the NHL introduced the draft lottery to curb that trend.
Today, all 16 non-playoff teams are entered into the draft lottery. The last-place team has a 25.5 percent chance at the first overall pick, with the odds decreasing incrementally up to the 17th-place team, which has a 0.5 percent chance. However, teams can only move up a maximum of 10 spots. So, for example, if the 14th-place team is drawn first, they only jump to the fourth overall pick, and the last-place team retains the first overall selection.
Two lottery draws are made: one for the first overall pick and one for the second. The remaining picks are slotted in based on the final standings.
This system is designed to help teams at the bottom rebuild by drafting the top players. A key benefit is that it adds unpredictability to the draft order, keeping hope alive for teams just outside the playoffs. But the downside is clear: bottom teams still have the best odds, and teams that barely miss the playoffs often end up stuck in the murky middle.
Rewarded for losing
Under the current system, the last-place team is guaranteed a top-three pick and holds the best odds to land the first overall selection. It’s an improvement over the pre-lottery format, but the core issue remains: the worst teams are still rewarded more than those who narrowly miss the playoffs.
The Kraken have yet to pick first overall in their young history, but they’ve benefited from the system. In their inaugural season, a postponed game, originally scheduled for April 13, against the Winnipeg Jets was rescheduled to May 1—after the NHL playoffs had already begun. The Kraken held a 3-1 lead after two periods, but Winnipeg stormed back with three goals in 4:16 to win 4-3. It looked like a meaningless game, but the outcome mattered. A Kraken win would have meant finishing 28th; a loss placed them 29th. That one loss kept them below the Philadelphia Flyers and ahead of them in the draft order. The New Jersey Devils eventually won the second lottery draw, bumping Seattle to the fourth overall pick.
With the fourth overall pick in the 2022 NHL Draft, the Kraken selected Shane Wright. Had they won that final game, they would have picked fifth, and Wright might be wearing orange as a Philadelphia Flyer. As of March 25, Wright leads all 2022 first-round picks in career points per 60 minutes at 2.481. Logan Cooley ranks second at 2.410.
I’m not saying Seattle tanked during its inaugural season—playoff expectations were high after Vegas’s expansion success—but it’s a good example of how losing can still be rewarded under the current system.
Burn Point Threshold
I love the competitive nature of hockey and want teams to strive for wins without being penalized for it. While the current lottery discourages blatant tanking, it still rewards losing and punishes late-season wins, leaving teams stuck between integrity and draft position.
Enter the Burn Point Threshold, or BPT—a system I created to eliminate tanking incentives while still supporting struggling teams.
Under BPT, all 16 non-playoff teams enter the draft lottery with equal odds—one entry each, no weighted balls, no rewards for finishing lower. The draft order is then shaped by a point-based threshold.
Here’s how it works:
- Each non-playoff team is assigned “burn points” (BP) on a sliding scale based on standings: 32nd place gets one point, 31st gets two points, 30th gets three points, and so on up to 17th place, which gets 16 points.
- The lottery draws teams at random, one at a time.
- As teams are drawn, their burn points are subtracted from a 16-point threshold.
- Once the burn total reaches or exceeds 16, the lottery ends.
The drawn teams receive the top picks in the order selected. Remaining teams are slotted in by reverse standings starting after the last lottery pick. In this system, the number of lottery picks is dynamic. If a playoff bubble team draws the first overall pick, the draft ends sooner, allowing lower teams to still get decent selections. But if teams near the bottom of the standings are drawn, the lottery continues until the point threshold is met or exceeded. This levels the playing field by giving equal odds to all non-playoff teams, reducing the incentive to finish last.
Burn Point Threshold examples
Here are a couple of examples of how a draft could play out:
Let’s say the 24th-place team (nine BP), the 27th-place team (six BP), and the 31st-place team (two BP) are drawn. That adds up to 17 burn points—lottery over. Those teams pick first, second, and third in the order they were drawn. The 32nd-place team would pick fourth overall.
In a separate scenario, the 17th-place team (16 BP) hits on the first draw. The lottery ends immediately. That team picks first overall, and the rest of the draft proceeds in reverse standings order, starting with the 32nd-place team picking second overall.
Data for Burn Point Threshold
We simulated 10,000 draft lotteries to test fairness and function.
In BPT, every non-playoff team has an equal shot at the first overall pick. But since the lottery ends at 16 burn points, the two last-place teams never will get less than a sixth overall pick and 99.3 percent of the time will get a top-five pick. It’s not a flat-odds system—it’s a fair-odds system.
Here are the percentages for each pick in the 10,000 draft simulations.
Pros of Burn Point Threshold
The BPT model brings a dynamic element to the draft process, introducing an increased level of unpredictability while ensuring teams aren’t penalized for competing and winning. All non-playoff teams start on equal footing while still guaranteeing the last-place team a top-six pick through the burn point structure.
It strikes a balance between fairness and function—every team gets a chance, but those who struggled still have an opportunity to land a high pick. The result is a draft system that rewards effort and maintains meaningful competition until the final horn of the season.
Tweaking the BPT model
One of the strengths of the Burn Point Threshold (BPT) system is its flexibility. The core structure—equal odds, a point-based cutoff, and reverse-standings fallback—provides a solid foundation to build on. Here are two simple, impactful ways to tweak BPT without compromising its integrity:
- 16+1 Rule: Requires one additional team to be drawn after the 16-point threshold is reached, guaranteeing at least two lottery winners and adding a little extra suspense to the process.
- Adjustable Threshold: Raising the burn point threshold (to 20, 24, etc.) increases the number of lottery picks and spreads top selections more evenly. Lower thresholds keep the lottery shorter and offer greater protection for the league’s worst teams. I used 16 points in the initial model to emphasize support for struggling teams. But the threshold is fully adjustable. If tanking remains a concern, the league can raise the threshold. This extends the lottery, adds unpredictability, and makes it harder to game the system. At the same time, it gives the league control over how broadly top picks are distributed.
Here is how the draft pick odds change when using 24 BP, instead of 16 (10,000 simulations):
Other options to prevent tanking
There are several other proposals aimed at discouraging tanking while still supporting struggling teams. While we won’t dive into all of them here, two of the more popular ideas are “The Gold Plan” and a single-elimination tournament.
The Gold Plan
“The Gold Plan” was created by Adam Gold, hence the name. This idea awards draft order based on performance after a team is mathematically eliminated from playoff contention. The more points a team earns after elimination, the higher their draft position.
It adds competitive meaning to late-season games and may encourage teams to retain key players instead of offloading them at the trade deadline. However, one drawback is that it could incentivize teams to tank earlier in the season just to reach elimination sooner and start banking points.
You can read an expanded explanation of The Gold Plan on hockeyviz.com. The PWHL started using this model in 2024 and is the first professional league to adopt this model.
Single-elimination tournament
Another idea is a March Madness-style bracket for all non-playoff teams to determine draft order. It’s exciting in theory but raises concerns. Would players risk injury in meaningless games? Would expiring-contract players want to jeopardize future deals? This concept is fun on paper, but it would be tough to implement in practice.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it
Some fans are fine with tanking and think the current system works. Tanking doesn’t guarantee the first overall pick—just better odds. And it helps bad teams rebuild through the draft. That said, rewarding losses feels flawed. Systems like BPT and The Gold Plan offer a way to level the field without incentivizing losing.
Is tanking a problem in the NHL?
Tanking remains one of the most polarizing aspects of professional sports—especially in leagues like the NHL, where a single draft pick can reshape a franchise’s future when a generational talent enters the mix. While the current system tries to discourage tanking, it still leaves room for strategic underperformance. Fans want to see their teams compete every night—not quietly fold for the sake of odds.
That’s why proposals like the Burn Point Threshold or The Gold Plan deserve consideration. Both aim to reward effort, not apathy, while still helping weaker teams restock talent. Whether it’s a dynamic lottery cap or a post-elimination points race, these systems offer fresh ways to reshape the draft without penalizing teams for playing hard.
What are your thoughts? Should the NHL explore bold changes to prevent tanking? Would you prefer something like BPT or The Gold Plan, or does the current system work well enough?
Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Blaiz Grubic
Blaiz Grubic is a contributor at Sound Of Hockey. A passionate hockey fan and player for over 30 years, Blaiz grew up in the Pacific Northwest and is an alumni of Washington State University (Go Cougs!). When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about hockey, he enjoys quality time with his wife and daughter or getting out on a golf course for a quick round. Follow @blaizg on BlueSky or X.
I think tanking is like shoplifting, there is no one who can prove a team is tanking. In other words, we do not arrest shoplifters because we have no police to arrest them. Same goes with Tanking. We cannot really prove a team tanked .
NHL is perfectly set up (until expansion) for a draft lottery system that has non-playoff teams draft playoff teams to tether their draft outcomes to. Similar to draft lottery reveal, imagine that before first playoff game a mini-draft is aired on national broadcast. Worst season record picks first, through team with 16th-worst record. This year San Jose would pick first. The team they pick is who their draft outcome is tied to. For example, in this scenario SJ picked Edmonton and Edmonton wins the cup, the Sharks get the first pick. Chicago picks second, takes Florida who loses the rematch in this hypothetical final, Blackhawks pick second. Draft continues down the line with draft outcomes based on chosen team final placement.
Not only is this still random and fair, but instead of of cheering for invisible draws, ping pong balls, etc, now non-playoff teams have a vested interest in the playoffs and reason to watch. Teams also get some autonomy on their fate. Could provide boost to tv ratings which league needs in addition to curbing tanking. Additionally adds great talking points and interest for the draft strategy and perceived endorsements or slights that the non-playoff team’s draft choices would imply. Easy talking points to drive more discussion and eyeballs to league.
This is a really interesting idea. Picking the Stanley Cup winner is tough, so teams could end up with a bad outcome if they tie themselves to a Presidents’ Trophy winner that gets bounced early. Just look at Boston in 2023 and Tampa Bay in 2019—clear Cup favorites, both knocked out in the first round.
That said, I’m not sure how I feel about rooting for another franchise to win the Cup—especially when it’s a team I don’t want to cheer for (Vegas, for example).
In the San Jose example, where they could end up picking ninth, that would definitely sting. There’s tanking, and then there are teams that are truly bad and need to rebuild. Objectively separating the two is really tough, but I still think those teams need access to good picks. That said, just gifting a top-three pick—like the current lottery sometimes does—feels unfair to me.
I’m not in favor of any system that provides an equal chance for all 16 non-qualifiers, but I love the outside the box thinking. The closest I could get to was a ‘triple lottery’ where names of the 6 best non-qualifiers are drawn at random. As drawn, the first five are placed in order (16, 15, 14, 13, 12 …). The remaining team is placed in a new pool with the next five non-qualifiers, who are again drawn in order (11, 10, 9, 8, 7 …) until there is one remaining team, which is then thrown into a final lottery with the five worst non-qualifiers, and teams are again drawn and placed (6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) as drawn. Fun for TV (three lotteries!). Every team enters with a glimmer of hope, but the five worst teams are assured top 6 picks.
@seattlenomad I like your idea for the conversation it would bring, both before the draw and throughout the playoffs. It gives every market a team to root for; great for ratings! Would you rank the 8 teams tied to first-round losers in reverse order of points? If San Jose picks Edmonton, then EDM loses in first round, SJ would pick 9th? That’s a big fall! But people would be talking…..
@bevans1010 Love this kind of creative thinking! The triple lottery definitely adds drama and keeps fans engaged across tiers—fun concept. My big push for equal odds is to eliminate those tier cutoffs, which still incentivize losing just enough to drop a level. Giving every non-playoff team the same odds means teams aren’t penalized for winning. And if a higher-ranked team hits early, it ends the draft sooner, effectively giving the lower ranked teams a better picks.
As much as I would want the opposite, tie breakers should be based on selected team’s regular season standing. So this year let’s assume the Jets win the Presidents trophy but went out in 1st round. The non-playoff team selecting them would draft 9th.
Without some risk mitigation, the teams would not want to support the system. Also provides some strategy to drafting. How much do non-playoff teams trust the Jets/Caps versus the floor in the non-playoff draft their records would provide? That said, dropping the Sharks all the way to 16th in this scenario would be beyond punitive to their fans and place to much dependence on luck no matter how much fun the talking point it could be. Again the starting point of this conversation was avoiding tanking. I think this system would provide a fun alternative plus a fair and balanced relief to tanking. I like the “what’s in it for me” for the league while trying to grow interest and ratings.
It also would create some interesting dynamics and opportunities for rivalry/resentment between teams/fanbases. Would Boston really pick Toronto to tether their draft to if that was the best play available to them? What happens when the highly draft playoff team flames out early and the draft hopeful gets stuck with a crappy pick as a result? Do the fans hold it against [whichever playoff team they were tethered to]?
The Burn Point Threshold is solid and does exactly what it is designed to do, but it is not particularly dramatic. The Gold Plan would make for some wild games down the stretch, which is always great. It would also disincentivize selling off players at the deadline, which I think would be fantastic for the sport. For one, it means that the players do not have to uproot themselves and move twice in the last years of their contracts. It also means that those players would have a bit of incentive to sign in the same town so that they do not have to go through the misery of finding a new house in another city. Less mobility in the NHL would be welcome for the players, I am sure, as well as for the fans who barely get the time to really like a guy before he is out the door.
Of course, anything that gets rid of tanking is fine by me. As a long-time Senators fan, tanking is a real kick in the teeth. I am sure that the players feel the same way when the GM offloads their best teammates before the season and ensures that nothing they do all year will matter in the slightest. It’s an insult to the city and the fans when they are sold tickets to games where they will not get to see a quality product. I felt badly for the people in the stands at that Chicago game.
You hear people say that tanking is how championship teams are made. Bull. It’s how perennial losers are made. It’s how fans get to watch the best guys who were brought into the system get shown the door only to have Hall of Fame careers elsewhere while the skinflint owner spends to the minimum and constantly threatens to move the team because ticket sales are in the tank along with the team’s record. Yeah, people remember the Lightning and the Avs coming out of long, interminable rebuilds to have long competitive streaks, but they don’t remember all the other teams who did the same thing and never broke out.
What about something like having a cutoff point in the season, where any points earned after the cutoff are subtracted from your points earned before the cutoff point for the purpose of determining draft order, thereby incentivizing teams to compete hard during the final stretch of the season no matter where they are in the standings.
Say the cutoff point is game 67, the last 15 games are where you need to win in order to improve your draft position. For example, San Jose has 45 points at the 67-game mark and Chicago has 49 points at the 67-game mark. San Jose earns 10 points in their last 15 games and Chicago earns 15 points in their last 15 games. For the purposes of determining draft order, San Jose ends with 35 points and Chicago ends with 34.
That’s a really creative twist—kind of a structured version of the Gold Plan, but with a fixed cutoff instead of waiting for playoff elimination. I like that it encourages late-season competitiveness and gives weaker teams a chance to improve their draft position through effort.
That said, I think it runs into a similar issue as the Gold Plan: it shifts the incentive to tank earlier in the season. If teams know only the post-cutoff performance counts, there’s a risk they try to enter that stretch with as few points as possible to give themselves a better baseline. So instead of tanking in the final weeks, it just front-loads the incentive.
Still, I love the thinking—any system that sparks conversation about rewarding effort is worth exploring.
Tanking is not ethical and should result in 5 years of relegation,this be a deterrent and might bring back fans like me.Edmonton and Toronto are exactly what I have been talking about.Tanking is like fixing games you know you will lose Hockey is a joke