Utah has been the talk of the league because its latest tanking strategy was both blatant and seemed to find a loophole in the league's system. Utah's two biggest stars — Lauri Markkanen and the just-acquired Jaren Jackson Jr. — qualify as stars under the league's Player Participation Policy. So, the Jazz made sure they participated — the stars played 25 minutes in the first three quarters of games against the Magic and Heat, and in both games the Jazz built up a lead. Then they benched the stars the entire fourth, no matter what happened (Utah blew the lead to Orlando, held on against Miami).

The NBA was not amused and on Thursday fined the Utah Jazz $500,000 for "conduct detrimental to the league."

The NBA also fined the Indiana Pacers $100,000 for "violating the Player Participation Policy in connection with the team's game against the Utah Jazz on Feb. 3." Indiana sat star Pascal Siakam for that game, but the league determined he was healthy enough to play.

"Overt behavior like this that prioritizes draft position over winning undermines the foundation of NBA competition and we will respond accordingly to any further actions that compromise the integrity of our games," NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said in a statement. "Additionally, we are working with our Competition Committee and Board of Governors to implement further measures to root out this type of conduct."

Utah’s Jackson is now out, likely for the rest of the season, following knee surgery.

With 10 teams — a full one-third of the league — actively trying to lose games for the rest of the season, heading into what is considered one of the best and deepest drafts of the last couple of decades, tanking has become THE story around the NBA. While Utah and Indiana were fined, plenty of other teams are tanking but can dodge the league's official ire because they don't have any players who meet the league's criteria for a "star player" (an All-Star or a league award winner in the past three years).

The NBA's problem is that there is no good answer. The fact of the matter is that landing the No. 1 pick (or a high pick) can completely change a franchise's fortunes (Cooper Flagg in Dallas, Victor Wembanyama in San Antonio, Cade Cunningham in Detroit, Anthony Edwards in Minnesota, and those are just recent examples). Taking short-term losses to increase the odds of a better lottery pick and potentially landing a player like that is worth it.

Expect the league to take some small measures this offseason. The most likely option is to limit draft pick protections to only 1-4 or the lottery, because this season both Utah and Washington are incentivised to tank because they have top-eight protected picks.

But that doesn't get at the core problem of incentivising teams to lose because of the potential of what a top pick can mean (even if the NBA Draft Lottery odds are flattened). While there are suggestions that would completely remove those incentives (all lottery teams have the same odds, or a pre-set cycle of when and where teams draft, commonly referred to as "the wheel) that strips hope from the fan bases of struggling teams. The league and United States sports fans in general like the idea of parity and giving the worst teams a chance if they are well managed and coached, and these systems remove that.

For now, the Jazz and Pacers are paying out of pocket for getting caught at what a third of the league is doing.