Remove teams with losing records<\/p>\n
No legitimate Super Bowl champion should have a losing record in the regular season. The Panthers, crowned NFC South champions at 8-9, are not an outlier. Since 2010, five teams with losing records have made the postseason. The 2022 Bucs were the first team to make the dance with a losing record since the league instituted a 17-game schedule. This season, the NFC South has done it again.<\/p>\n
This isn\u2019t an annual problem, but it is an inherent design flaw.<\/p>\n
Division champs getting an automatic playoff berth \u2013 and a home game \u2013 is a hot topic every season. The usual defence is tradition. Divisions matter. Rivalries matter. Storylines matter. And they do \u2013 up to a point. Preserving divisions and guaranteeing a playoff berth is essential; there is no need for a record-only free-for-all here. The end-of-season Steelers\u2013Ravens game<\/a> was electric precisely because of what was at stake: a division title, a playoff spot, a good seed and the futures of the league\u2019s two longest-tenured coaches<\/a>. But that electricity should not grant teams immunity. You can win your division and still not deserve to play in January. Those ideas do not need to be mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n If you win your division with a losing record, you get the hats, the banner and the bonuses. What you should not get is a playoff game. January should belong to teams that proved, at the very least, they could win more often than they lost. That\u2019s not radical. It can be done while still maintaining that division winners keep homefield if they finish above .500.<\/p>\n NFL playoff bracket. <\/a><\/p>\n The Panthers will be a tough out in the wildcard round. They have the ingredients to replicate the 2011 \u201cBeast Quake\u201d game<\/a>, when the Seahawks and Marshawn Lynch shocked the Saints despite a regular-season 7-9 record. They\u2019ve taken some big scalps this season and have already beaten the Rams. But rewarding them with a home spot against one of the conference\u2019s best after posting a losing record is wrong. If it was switched up this season, Minnesota would be in the playoff field over Carolina, with the home site awarded to the team with the better record (the Rams). That seems a fair swap.<\/p>\n Expand the field \u2013 but do it cleanly<\/p>\n There was a time when the NFL\u2019s playoff structure felt close to perfect. Twelve teams. Two byes per conference. Excellence was rewarded, mediocrity filtered out, and the bracket made intuitive sense.<\/p>\n Then the format expanded<\/a> to 14 teams, largely to sell another television package and the whole thing began to look misshapen. Seven teams per conference with a single bye is awkward. One team rests, six do not. The reward for being elite is marginal. The punishment for sneaking in is almost nonexistent.<\/p>\n There are some upsides. The regular season has more meaningful games down the stretch thanks to extra teams being in the hunt. The two added games have real stakes. What\u2019s not to love? A Week 18 slate where a batch of teams rest their starters is worth it, given the weekend ahead. But the overall structure is ungainly. It is designed to flog TV inventory, not find a champion.<\/p>\n The Denver Broncos, as the AFC\u2019s top seed, earned a bye in the wildcard round. Photograph: Hector Acevedo\/ZUMA Press Wire\/Shutterstock<\/p>\n A return to 12 teams isn\u2019t happening. The NFL does not contract; it expands. If that is the direction of travel, then it should at least be done cleanly. Sixteen teams. Eight per conference. Give byes to the top-two seeds, or forgo byes altogether. Preserving homefield advantage for division champions (with a winning record) is a must in the first round. From there, the field should be re-seeded to give whoever had the best regular-season record home advantage.<\/p>\n Expansion will eventually arrive \u2013 an 18th game, perhaps two new teams. When that time comes, adding an extra playoff spot per conference will be inevitable. The league can \u2013 and should \u2013 get there early.<\/p>\n Bring jeopardy back to kicking<\/p>\n It has been a historic season for kickers. Records are falling for distance and accuracy. Pair that with the new kickoff rules<\/a> and the new kicking ball<\/a>, and the playing field has been tilted in dramatic ways.<\/p>\n The new rules were introduced to bring a spark back to special teams while reducing the volume of high-end collisions. That has worked. The knock-on consequences, however, have ever so slightly warped the game. The touchback is being placed at the 35-yard line while quality kickers comfortably nail kicks from 60 yards<\/a>. Add the tweaks to special teams rules (such as touching the center) and the kickers are set up in field-goal range more often with more freedom to drill long shots. Case in point: Dallas\u2019 Brandon Aubrey has kicked more 60-yard field goals in his three-year career than every NFL kicker in the 20th century.<\/p>\n Cowboys kicker Brandon Aubrey has 11 field goals from 50-plus yards this season. Photograph: Frank Franklin\/AP<\/p>\n That\u2019s great for Jacksonville, who will have a significant advantage this postseason because of Cam Little\u2019s leg. Little has boomed field goals from 70 yards (preseason), 68 and 67 this season. Kickers bring the drama, but playoff games should be decided by the players who scrap away for 70-something plays.<\/p>\n There are two potential changes. One is to add a \u201ckicking zone,\u201d similar to the \u201clanding zone\u201d during kickoffs. With a kicking zone, there would be a point of demarcation \u2013 call it the opponent\u2019s 40-yard line \u2013 at which a team can attempt a field goal. Before that, an offense has to choose whether to punt the ball away or go for it on fourth down. It would manufacture fourth-down drama and force coaches into uncomfortable decisions.<\/p>\n A set zone has its faults. It would feel artificial and clunky. It would also remove some of the strategy of the game. And you just know there will be a playoff game decided by a team falling one yard short of the kicking zone, which would inevitably lead to it being scrapped.<\/p>\n The quieter solution is probably the better one: narrow the uprights.<\/p>\n Kicking is a discrete skill. And we\u2019re living in the glory years, when even college kickers are converting 55-yard efforts<\/a>. But the environment now allows those players to take on an outsized role. Reducing the width of the uprights would restore risk and suspense without changing the essence of the game. Long field goals would still be attempted, but they would again feel like choices rather than defaults. Tension would return. So would consequences.<\/p>\n Right now, the talent of the NFL\u2019s kickers has minimized risk. And risky football is fun. Risky football in the playoffs is what fuels group chats and debate shows. Addressing the kicking boom would add even more jeopardy.<\/p>\n