5 Ways To Fix the NFL's Rules, Referees, Schedule, and More

How to change the league so that owners, players, and fans are happier

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another edition of Free Agent! Make football, not war, this week.

In this week's newsletter we're going to fix the NFL, with rule changes on and off the field. Then I have a bunch of Ryder Cup thoughts after watching a lot of golf for three days.

But first, congratulations to the final four lads in our NFL Eliminator challenge. About two-thirds of the remaining field was cut out by the Chargers getting upset by the Giants. How could you doubt Jaxson Dart? Good luck to the remaining players. I, for one, am rooting for the cleverly named "ESPNFAN4944172642's Picks 1."

Locker Room Links

• Huge growth in baseball's attendance, TV numbers, and social media impressions this season.
• This is a fantastic thread on X that applies to sports tickets too. Stadiums and arenas aren't getting any bigger, but more and more people are chasing tickets with more and more dollars. As he writes toward the end of the thread, "this isn't because life sucks and it's not even particularly unfair. It's because we are prosperous." (See my previous newsletter on this here.)
• Bad Bunny would not have been my Super Bowl halftime show pick (Guster was robbed, yet again), but the idea is clearly to get performers who can bring in viewers who are not otherwise football fans.
• Israel was potentially facing a ban from the European soccer confederation over the war in Gaza (which they're a member of because Israel playing in the Asian confederation with Middle Eastern countries would probably create a lot of geopolitical problems), but that threat seems to have subsided for now.
• SEC zealot Paul Finebaum might run for the Senate (as a Republican) and leave the sports media world. The U.S. Capitol is the only worse place for him to be than a TV studio.
• Maybe you can go back? Thierry Darlan, who played professional basketball in the NBA G League, was granted NCAA eligibility. (This might only apply to international players, though.)
• Elsewhere in Reason: The federal government will almost certainly shut down tonight. Read the latest here.
• You need to see this list of "offensive terms" that a British county's soccer association told players not to use.
  

  ❌ 'Come on lads' is offensive, footballers told

  Berks and Bucks FA has published an inclusive language guide designed to "build a more welcoming environment"

  Here is a list of its discouraged terms ???? pic.twitter.com/9TyULEk9rJ

  — The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 27, 2025

Football Is Great. Let's Make It Greater.

On the one hand, it's a bit rich to suggest fixes to the NFL. It dominates American culture, and 29 of the 32 teams are on the Forbes list of the top 50 most valuable sports franchises in the world. On the other hand, nothing is perfect, and thinking about rule changes is fun.

Back before the season started, some of you responded to our Free Agent survey with some ideas about how you'd fix the NFL. Here are some of your ideas combined with my own. As with our changes to MLB and college football, these are not the changes I'd make if I were an all-powerful ruler. I'm trying to juggle what fans, owners, and players all want.

On-field changes: Let's start with an easy one: None of the lads are happy with the way roughing the passer is called. My favorite survey response said "Change the rules so you don't have to tuck the QB into bed and read him a bedtime story when you tackle him." In theory we could go all the way to eliminating the rule and just apply unsportsmanlike conduct to nasty hits on quarterbacks, but I think it's better to train referees to be less strict and perhaps 20 percent more lenient than the standard they're using now. As for other rules, I'm a fan of this change because fewer things should be automatic first downs: "Get rid of defensive holding being an automatic first down especially when it's only 5 yards." I'm surprised no one brought up the spot-of-the-foul vs. 15-yard debate for pass interference. I wish officials had discretion to award different yardages based on how severe the interference was and how catchable the pass was. That's only going to lead to complaints, so I guess I lean toward sticking with spot-of-the-foul. As one of you suggested, "no more 'ineligible' receivers." That means more big-man touchdowns, and everyone is in favor of that.

Refereeing: Some people think full-time referees will fix everything, as if full-time referees will have no trouble making snap decisions on the super-quick movements of 22 players. It might help a little bit to have referees in training full-time, but consider the talent pool you get with part-time referees. The country's best and brightest can have a full-time job and be NFL referees without having to pick one or the other. Legendary referee Ed Hochuli was a high-powered lawyer, after all. Moving on, TV viewers should get to hear audio from replay reviews, as the ACC is doing with some college football games, and as the UFL is already doing with every game. Let challenges apply to everything (as long as the coach is specific—it can't just be "review that play," or even "review that for holding," it has to be "review that play for holding on #58.") Let a sky judge look at anything (as long as it's quick and not stupid). Lastly, am I crazy, or are reviews on forward passes that might be fumbles overcomplicated? If the ball flew forward, the quarterback's arm was probably going forward as he was hit and it should be an incomplete pass. That idea should guide refs and remove the need for a lot of dumb reviews like this one.

Game schedule: Several of you wanted to go back to a 16-game schedule. I get it, I'm with you, but it's not going to happen. The owners want more money, and the players also know they're getting more money from more games, too. The 18-game schedule is inevitable, and I think it's likely each team will get a second bye week, as one of you suggested. That means 20 weeks of regular season football for the league's broadcast partners to sell ads for in primetime games. In that case, every team should get at least one primetime game (three have none this year). Athletic writer Matt Barrow suggested that players should only be allowed to play in 16 games, even with an 18-game schedule—I doubt owners want that, and players are fierce competitors who probably don't want that either (their backups would basically get a tryout for the starting job). In terms of scheduling the season, instead of starting the season the weekend after Labor Day and scheduling forward from there, the league should put the Super Bowl on the Sunday before Presidents' Day and move backward from there. The NFL should also lobby harder for a legal change that would let them have one primetime game on Friday and Saturday nights each week throughout the season.

Off-the-field changes: The NFL actually has the best off-field regulations in terms of making the league competitive year after year, without being fully random. If your team sucks one year (I'm talking top-five draft pick awful), they might get into the postseason the next year and be Super Bowl contenders the year after. Rebuilds don't take very long. Meanwhile, NHL fans know if their team is just starting a rebuild, it's probably going to mean at least five years out of the playoffs—drafted players take too long to reach the show, and elite players rarely hit free agency and switch teams. But the league should increase the roster size (the difference between NFL and college is crazy), and increase entry-level contract payments (college football payments for top players are closing in). The players union should negotiate for a shorter entry-level contract length (three seasons) so that players can earn their worth more quickly in a league known for short careers.

Pro Bowl: It sucks, but it's not going away because it gets TV money and players get bonuses for it. Instead of one big flag football game, make it a three-day, single-elimination tournament between divisions with four-man rosters. Each NFL team gets one representative on their division team, and the roster plays offense and defense together. A famous recent alumni from the regular season's division-winning team gets to be the coach who picks the roster. (For bonus purposes, full-size Pro Bowl rosters still get named, and the coaches get to pick from that roster for the flag football tournament). So under last year's rosters, the NFC North team might have Sam Darnold (then on the Vikings) throwing to Amon-Ra St. Brown (Lions) and Jaylon Johnson (a cornerback for the Bears) with Rashan Gary (Packers defensive end) blocking. The players get their bonuses, the NFL gets three days of content to sell to broadcasters, and fans get to try something new. If you hate this idea, don't watch.

But most importantly, don't change anything about NFL RedZone, or the new kick-offs. (All of these ideas are better than Peyton Manning's ideas.)

Golf Sucked Until It Didn't

It's me, the lad who has only paid really close attention to the Ryder Cup one time, with some thoughts.

The European team dominated Friday and Saturday and then nearly blew it all on Sunday. I went from looking up the worst Ryder Cup defeats in history to watching incredible scenes play out as the Americans chased a comeback. Watching Rory McIlroy against Scottie Scheffler (whose Christian name is Scott) was a joy. The U.S. may have lost 15–13, but their dominance on Sunday (Europe only won one singles match) is a clear sign that head-to-head, the American lads are better than Europe. It's just team golf that we struggle with, apparently.

I am ever more impressed with professional golfers, who will hit shots that roll to the wrong part of the green and it's disastrous for them, when hitting the green at all from long range would be a miracle for me.

The rough: The rough was cut too short, and the course was too forgiving. U.S. Captain Keegan Bradley basically admitted this backfired on his team—though my point is more about entertainment. Most holes seemed to be competitions for birdies. Give me carnage! Give me someone winning a hole with a par-saving putt! I was surprised to learn Bethpage Black only has water on one hole.

Better ball: The Friday and Saturday afternoon matches featured better ball (i.e. your team wins the hole if one of your two players has the best score on the hole). But this led to more halved holes, which are less exciting. Give me back-and-forth matches with lots of scoring! Roughly two-thirds of holes in these matches were halved. If the two best balls are tied, then go to the second two balls to tiebreak the hole (two birdies should be better than one birdie and one par).

Withdrawal: European player Viktor Hovland withdrew Sunday morning with a neck injury, so the match he was supposed to play was ruled a tie (seems to be a legitimate injury and not just something he woke up with and faked or exaggerated). American fans criticized the rule and felt it should have been a forfeit. I disagree: Ryder Cup golf is still a gentleman's game, and declaring a match a tie when your opponent is injured is more gentlemanly. More confusing was Bradley's decision to have the 10th best player in the world, Harris English, be the one to sit out the match.

Captain Keegan: Any Ryder Cup loss, close or not, is going to have people looking for a scapegoat, and Bradley bore the brunt of it. Some of that was certainly deserved. The guys behind Data Golf ranked all 132 possible pairings for the U.S. players. A pairing of Harris English and Collin Morikawa was ranked last. Yet Bradley trotted them out against Rory McIlroy and Tommy Fleetwood on both Friday and Saturday, and the American duo hardly stood a chance. Bradley's not the whole reason the U.S. lost, though—the Europeans just played better (at least on Friday and Saturday).

Should golf have international play more often? It clearly gets great TV numbers—but scarcity helps make the Ryder Cup and Presidents Cup interesting, and I'm not sure what other competitions would be fun, feasible, and competitive. Maybe we should go back to U.S. vs. U.K. and see how it goes. If you've got ideas, email them to me at [e-mail].

Replay of the Week

Cars don't normally go from 10th to first in two laps.

A FINISH YOU'VE GOT TO SEE TO BELIEVE!!! @chaseelliott wins a #NASCARPlayoffs classic!!! pic.twitter.com/A6WQS3akYj

— NASCAR (@NASCAR) September 28, 2025

That's all for this week. Enjoy watching the real game of the week, the Reason Versus debate against National Review on mass immigration: live in Washington, D.C., on Thursday (bring your wife and your mother!) and online on YouTube on Monday.

Comments

[Chumby]

Sportsball needs more DEI. *takes a knee*

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Toxic masculinity.

[Roberta]

...

As one of you suggested, "no more 'ineligible' receivers." That means more big-man touchdowns, and everyone is in favor of that.

Shows what idiots the suggester and blogger each are. If you had no ineligible receivers (as in 6-a-side football), there would be no big men in the game, except maybe in goal line situations. Instead everyone would be little guys, spread out and throw the ball around.

Not that I'm advocating this, and they'd be less interesting as they became more common, but if you really wanted to see big men carrying the ball, you'd allow the ball to be kept in scrimmage, as in Rugby Union. Then you'd probably complain they're not letting the little guys have the ball enough.

[mad.casual]

Not that bloggers and armchair experts aren't dumb, but I think you're reading your own preferences here. Agreed that there are no big men in 7-on-7 (I assume this is what you mean by 6-a-side), but there's also no blitzing or roughing.

Assuming we're 11-on-11 and the ball is still snapped you're going to have a center, who is functionally less/ineligible regardless of what the rules say and if you're going to be functionally passing rather than throwing Hail Mary's from heel while scrambling, you're going to need at least two more lineman or backs to make some kind of pocket.

Personal $0.02: The "no more ineligible receivers" suggestion is also a pretty all-or-none solution. You could fold it into "illegal forward pass" so that *if* a lineman is 5+ yds. up field and catches the pass, the ball is dead where he caught it and the penalty assessed from there. More than I want to see "big-man touchdowns" I want to see a scrambling QB throw a desperate pass to a 300+ lb. blob with oven-mitt hands.

[Roberta]

No, I meant 6-man tackle football. I'm surprised you don't know about it. It's about a century old, mostly played interscholastically at schools too small to field 11s. Look it up if you're interested.

Why do you think when they legalized the forward pass they made only about half the team eligible receivers? Because this problem if everyone's eligible was instantly obvious. It breaks the game of 11s.

Even in Rugby League, where there is no forward pass, they spread out. They only need the heavies to pack for the occasional scrum-down.

[Jefferson Paul]

The problem, as I see it, with everyone being an eligible receiver is that there would be no restriction on linemen blocking downfield before and during the pass. That would be a HUGE change to the game, and I don't think it would be for the positive.

[mad.casual]

No, I meant 6-man tackle football. I'm surprised you don't know about it. It's about a century old, mostly played interscholastically at schools too small to field 11s. Look it up if you're interested.

I did. Where I grew up this was "8-man". Apparently, there's 6, 8, and 9, and 8 is the most common... outside TX. Also, I'm unable to find the "no passing" equivalent of the A7FL.

Why do you think when they legalized the forward pass they made only about half the team eligible receivers? Because this problem if everyone's eligible was instantly obvious. It breaks the game of 11s.

Yeah, if everyone can catch the ball and run I don't disagree. It essentially becomes 11-man basketball without the dribbling or soccer. But, as I indicated, the forward pass isn't "everyone or no one" when it was created and there's no reason to assume it has to be all-or-none. If a pass to half the team is down where they catch it, you still have the opportunity for big-man catches and touchdowns without turning the game into basketball or 7-on-7 and create an even more complicated/nuanced read of the field. You could even make intentional grounding a more prevalent penalty to the point where it would be better to throw it to a lineman downfield rather than take the loss in the backfield. This would/could also indirectly reduce the number of "traumatic" hits on 180 lb. QBs from 280 lb. defensive backs.

[mad.casual]

And this description of 6-man describes exactly what I'm talking about:

All six players are eligible to be receivers in the American game, while in the Canadian game, the player in the centre of the offensive line is ineligible. On offense, three linemen are required on the line of scrimmage at the start of the play. The player to whom the ball is snapped cannot advance the ball past the line of scrimmage (thus eliminating such plays as the bootleg or scramble); if the ball is tossed to another player, however, that player can run or throw the ball and the player to whom the ball was snapped is still an eligible receiver. All forward passes to the player who snapped the ball (center) must travel at least 1 yard (1 m) in flight.

[Chumby]

More tight ends converted into wide receivers?

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

The players should be armed and play to the death. That’s what people really want to see.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

No they don't, because there'd be so few survivors that almost all players would be rookies who didn't know what they were doing.

[SMP0328]

I'm a fan of this change because fewer things should be automatic first downs: "Get rid of defensive holding being an automatic first down especially when it's only 5 yards." I'm surprised no one brought up the spot-of-the-foul vs. 15-yard debate for pass interference. I wish officials had discretion to award different yardages based on how severe the interference was and how catchable the pass was. That's only going to lead to complaints, so I guess I lean toward sticking with spot-of-the-foul. As one of you suggested, "no more 'ineligible' receivers." That means more big-man touchdowns, and everyone is in favor of that.

I would keep defensive holding but would treat it the same as offensive holding: 10-yard penalty, no automatic first down. I agree with the NFL version of defensive pass interference (spot of the foul). The NCAA version rewards DPI when the receiver is about to catch a deep pass. Better to take a 15-yard penalty than let the receiver catch a 40-yard pass.

Officials don't want discretion. They like clear rules. No official will want to be deciding how many penalty yards an offending team deserves.

If you get rid of the concept of illegal receivers, you fundamentally change the game. As pointed in an earlier comment, you wouldn't have big men in the game. The offensive line would consist of the QB, the center, multiple running backs, and multiple wide- receivers/tight-ends.

One change I would make is to the "illegal contact" rule. That rule should be repealed or significantly modified. It should not be illegal merely to touch an eligible receiver who is more than 5 yards down from the line of scrimmage. Receivers take advantage of the rule on third and long by creating the contact in hope that the officials will blame the defender.

[MollyGodiva]

1. Each team only plays the same team once in the regular season.
2. Get rid of the micro divisions such as AFC East.
3. Top teams across the entire league by record go to play offs.
2. Ditch the two minute warning.