A plan to prevent tanking in the NHL – Burn Point Threshold

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!