2026 NFL Rules Vote
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| IR | CL | RL | TE | ||
| CRMO | JR/Corey | B | B | B | B |
| Demons | Eric/Anthony | B | B | B | B |
| Maulers | Merv/Mike | B | A | B | A |
| Mustangs | Larry/Ted | A | A | B | A |
| Pain | Al | B | B | A | B |
| Shamrox | Jeff S | B | A | B | A |
| The Ricans | Johnny/Gianni | B | B | B | B |
| Trash Talkers | John/Eric | A | A | A | A |
| Venom | Jeff M | B | A | B | A |
| Vipers | Austin | B | A | A | A |
| Virus | Brian | B | B | B | B |
| Who's Next | JT/Scott | B | A | A | A |
| Option A | 2 | 7 | 4 | 7 | |
| Option B | 10 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
Our league has had a
consistent group of owners for many years now. I am hopeful everyone understands
the great flexibility our league has shown with rule-change proposals over the
last 30 years. I use owner submitted feedback for proposed rule changes. Many
changes have been made; other proposals did not. It is all part of the
process. The goal of proposed changes is to provide the best league experience
(including Commish role) that rewards owners who skillfully manage their team.
There are four proposed
NFL rule changes we will vote on this year:
VOTE 1 (IR)
Playoff IR
Moves (QB/TE/K)
Once the playoffs start, no
free agent add/drop moves are permitted, only IR moves. Injured players listed
as doubtful or out can be replaced with any free agent. Injured players listed
as questionable can only be replaced with a player from the same NFL team, same
position. A few scenarios have played out that led to a discussion on a specific
issue with the current rule.
At RB/WR there are usually
multiple options on a NFL team who may step in for a questionable RB/WR. No
change has been proposed to that part of the rule. The issue is with a QB, TE
and K listed as questionable.
Owners may have limited
choices to replace a questionable QB/TE/K from the same NFL team. Your
replacement choices may be a backup QB who will run a much different offense, a
primarily blocking TE or a free agent kicker recently signed by the NFL team. It
is felt this is a potential disadvantage, and it is proposed to allow any free
agent QB/TE/K to be added in a playoff IR move.
The questionable player
IR playoff transaction rule has worked as intended for years. The rule is
designed to prevent teams from claiming a free agent with a great matchup or on
a recent hot streak. The desired goal of the IR playoff rule is you play with
the team that got you to the playoffs. Ultimately, is the "tough break"
mentality we have had on IR players in the playoffs the best thing for
the league?
The proposed change is as
follows:
During the playoffs, a questionable QB, TE or K can be replaced with
any player from the same position.
RULE VOTE 1
A) Keep the
current rule, a questionable QB, TE or K can only be replaced with a player from
the same NFL team, same position.
B) Change rule to allow a questionable QB,
TE or K be replaced with any player from the same position.
VOTE 2 (CL)
Conditional
Lineups
One of the core concepts of
our league has been submitting lineups on Sunday morning before the early games
start. There have been many discussions about this over the years. Various
issues with players in the late Sunday games and Monday night have led to
frustration. Also, owners also like to follow the live scoring on Fantrax. I
often work on Sunday so trying to balance lineup flexibility and live scoring
accuracy is challenging.
Several years ago, we made
a rule change to allow a conditional lineup of activating an IR player in a late
game. It has been suggested we allow additional conditional lineups to be
submitted on Sunday morning. This would allow owners time to decide late game
player status when evaluating issues such as injuries/team roles (i.e. is my
WR's starting QB going to play?), weather and other potential clarifications
needed.
The proposal is as follows:
--Teams can submit a conditional lineup for players in the late Sunday and
Monday night games only. The players must be designated, and your final lineup
selection must be submitted before kickoff of their game.
--For example, you
are unsure who to start in the optional position. You submit a conditional
lineup with a late game RB as the optional starter. You later decide you want to
start the designated late game WR instead. You send an email with the change
prior to kickoff of their game.
--I would confirm a conditional lineup change
and update Fantrax when I am available (could be after the late game has started
or already played)
--No player who has already played/playing can be inserted
into a lineup. All roster rules still apply. (i.e. must still have a legal
roster & lineup)
--Transactions after the Sunday morning deadline would still
not be permitted. (why we have subs if a player is a late scratch)
The Sunday morning lineup
rule is so owners would know their opponent’s lineup before the Sunday games
start. Owners not having to monitor lineups during the day on Sunday was
desired. Fantrax live scoring is a popular feature and Sunday afternoon games
could potentially not be accurate on Fantrax if a conditional lineup is
submitted.
How often would teams make
conditional lineups? That is unknown. When a situation arises, it is an option
some would like to have. Do we want flexibility to set your best lineup, or do
we stick with the Sunday morning lineup deadline, so lineups are known before
early games start and preserve live scoring accuracy?
The proposed change is as
follows:
Allow conditional Sunday morning lineups for late Sunday or Monday
night players
RULE VOTE 2
A) Keep the
current rule, Sunday morning lineup deadline with only conditional IR player
activation allowed.
B) Change rule, allow conditional Sunday morning lineup
for late Sunday or Monday night players.
VOTE 3 (RL)
Roster/Lineups
The current roster
format is 10 players, QB, RB(2), WR(3), Opt (any position), TE, K and DEF. The
current starting lineup is 8 players, QB, RB, WR(2), Opt(RB/WR), TE, K and DEF.
It has been proposed to increase both the roster size and number of starters in
a lineup.
The proposal is as follows:
--Increase roster to 11 by
adding an additional Optional spot. The new roster format would be QB, RB(2),
WR(3), Opt (2), TE, K, DEF.
--Increase the starting lineup to 9 by adding a
2nd starting optional player spot. You could start 2RB/3WR or 1RB/4WR.
--You
still could not start 3 RB's (as it is currently) and there would be a limit
of two QB, TE, K or DEF on your roster. (i.e. can't have two DEF in both
optional positions)
The NFL continues to be a
pass heavy league. We have all seen the shift to WR production and limited depth
at RB. This proposed change reflects popular current fantasy football
formats. There would be 12 less free agents available, with the number of
quality free agents varying week to week. There likely would be more QB/TE/DEF
in the optional spots, which would give teams more options to manage their bye
weeks. This overall additional flexibility is the desired goal.
The proposed change is as follows:
Expand rosters to 11 players with 9
starters.
RULE VOTE 3
A) Keep the current rule, 10 roster players with 8 starters.
B) Change rule to 11 roster players with 9 starters.
(**NOTE: Vote 4 below
should be considered and evaluated whether our roster format stays the same or
expands as described in Vote 3. The desired change works the same under both
potential roster size)
VOTE 4 (TE)
Starting
Lineup- Optional Player TE
Our current NFL
starting lineup is 8 players, featuring a RB, WR(2) and Opt (RB/WR). A proposal
has been made to give the option to start a second TE at optional, not just a
RB/WR.
The proposal is as follows:
--If teams had a second TE in the optional spot, allow a starting lineup of QB,
RB, WR(2), Opt (RB/WR/TE), TE, K and DEF.
--**If vote 3 passes, the
starting lineup could feature 2 TE along with 2RB/2WR or 1RB/3WR
The reason for the
proposal is there is rarely any two RB backfields anymore. There are more two &
even three tight end formations used by NFL teams. This change would more
closely mirror the current state of the NFL and give owners another option to
field their best starting lineup.
The TE position is scored
differently than RB/WR with one point per reception. Even with the added TE
scoring, the TE position is still behind RB/WR in top scoring players and
overall depth. Could a team draft the top 2 TE's with their first two picks if
they could start both? They could, but then they would miss out on all the top
tiers RB/WR. This proposed change is about flexibility and creating additional
strategies for owners to manage their team.
The proposed change is as
follows:
Allow a second TE to be started at optional, not just a RB/WR.
RULE VOTE 4
A) Keep the
current rule, starting optional position can be a RB/WR only.
B) Change rule
to allow a second TE to be started at the optional position.