@Malta @I.V.
My point is do you ever consider what amount of teams actually tanking would compromise the integrity of the game. I asked the question because I didn't want to assume you wanted more than a few teams to tank.
However, I would think if the 7-10 teams were to actively tank, it compromises the game. If a team should either tank or legitimately go for a chip, how many teams is that realistically in a year like this?
Also, why shouldn't the bucks tank under your litmus test? If they tank they could get a pick that they can turn into serious roster upgrades for their budding talent?
These are the questions I have.
I feel like you are a little caught up in your feelings about tanking, rather than the reality of the league. You are attached to this idea of "tanking" as some moral failure, as if it involves teams playing the popcorn guy at the 5, and forcing your top players to miss the bus.
There are already 5 or so teams that begin the season with the understanding that they will not be competing for a championship. They have un-spent cap space leftover from the summer, they are not putting on "the most competitive roster they can" - they are trying to get some guys experience, and planning on landing a high lottery pick.
If your roster is not good enough to compete, at all, and you're putting out some young players, and you're winning 18-25 games... you are tanking. A lot of teams are already doing that.
That approach is complicated when you have vets on the team who are decent, but not really in your future plans: PJ Tucker and Chandler in PHX for example -- they were better with Chandler playing more minutes, but they still weren't THAT good.
The Knicks had a horrendous and short-sighted summer. And they are in a unique position where the best player on their team is no longer in the future plans, but also can't be moved, because of a previous awful summer decision.
Right now there are 8 or 9 teams that may not win 30 games. 3 or 4 that are unlikely to win 25. Are you weeping for the integrity of the game right now?
You can set up a season where your goal is to play/try-out young/hungry guys, see who fits, and still not win. You can also arrive at a point during the season, where things have gone off the rails, and you realize you're better off losing than winning. Sports are relative, and as I said before, it's not just "go for a chip" or "lose 80 games" -- there are plenty of teams who are too good to be a lottery team, but not quite good enough to compete for a chip, and playing a competitive season, making the playoffs, and trying to figure out how you can take the next step -- is all a part of the process. There are also teams trying to make the leap from bottom-feeder to that middle tier, BECAUSE they've accrued the talent to compete.
If we could I'd love to keep Holiday, Quinn of Queens, Hernan, Kuzzin, Randle, The Chef, Lee, and KP just a nice young core. We need a younger SF though with all around capabilities and more size plus shooting
I wanna understand it but I can't understand the insults 
