Supporters argue that even small steps towards fairness are better than nothing, and this system could discourage tanking by reducing the reward for losing. They believe it’s a necessary evolution in league governance to maintain competitive integrity.

The risk is that teams will continue to find ways around the new rules, undermining any perceived benefits.

League executives might benefit from maintaining the status quo as it allows them to appear responsive without making tough decisions.

In the long run, this half-hearted approach could backfire as more teams exploit the system’s weaknesses, leading to calls for even stricter measures or radical reforms that might be harder to implement later.

This vote will likely split along lines of league insiders who see it as progress and outsiders who view it as a superficial fix. The tribalism stems from whether one believes in incremental change or demands immediate, drastic action.