League News Archives: Autumn 2021 to Summer 2024

2023 UFFL Questionnaire Results

Article Posted Sunday, Aug. 18, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern

Here are the results of the UFFL questionnaire poll questions, voted on by all 13 returning owners (besides commissioner Jared Byrd):

1. Due to the pandemic, the size of the UFFL injured reserve list was increased from three players to six players prior to the start of the 2020 season. Would you be in favor of a reduction of the IR list from six players to four players for the 2023 season?

Overwhelmingly, survey responders voted 11-2 to reduce the size of the injured reserve list from six players to four players, which will strengthen the free-agent pool and prevent instances of roster hoarding. A move to return to the previous limit of three players on IR could be voted on in 2024.

2. Should we keep the priority list waiver system or move to a blind-bid waiver system? (In a blind-bid format, each team is allocated a budget of fake "money" before the season begins to be spent on free-agent players on waivers. Waiver claims are awarded to the highest bidder instead of the worst-ranked team. If this rule change is adopted, the budget amount would probably be $100 per team.)

By far, this was the closest vote of all on this year's questionnaire, with seven of the 13 respondents preferring to keep the current waiver priority system in effect, and six votes for changing to the blind-bid waiver system.

3. Would you be interested in "starting from scratch" for the 2024 season? (The draft order would be determined by the final standings from the 2023 season and no keepers would be chosen prior to the 2024 draft. The rationale of the person who suggested this idea is that most of the current owners haven't been around for the league's entire existence and may have inherited clubs that have never had great keeper options.)

Eight of the 13 respondents rejected this proposal, with five owners voting to start over from scratch. If this plan had been approved, it would have had a significant impact on trade offers, since 2024 draft picks would have been much harder to move.

4. In order to strengthen the free-agent pool, would you be in favor of reducing the maximum number of running backs that a team can have on their active roster from six to five?

In another lopsided result, 11 of 13 survey participants voted to lower the maximum number of active running backs allowed.

5. In order to strengthen the free-agent pool, would you be in favor of reducing the maximum number of wide receivers that a team can have on their active roster from six to five?

The results for this poll were much closer than the similar question posed for running backs; UFFL owners voted by a narrow 7-6 margin to limit the number of wideouts teams could carry on their active rosters.

6. Are there any other rule changes that should be considered?
Most owners did not have additional suggestions, but here are some of the ideas that were mentioned:

a. Rookies - One owner suggested that each team roster must include at least one rookie. I just joined a non-Fleaflicker league that has a similar rule in effect and would be open to considering this rule change for the 2024 season, to be voted on by other UFFL owners.

b. Playing for money - This idea was brought up in the past but was ultimately scrapped for multiple reasons, including several owners at the time who said they would be unable to continue with the UFFL if it had been converted to a money league.

c. Punt return and kick return yardage added - Individual players (as well as team defense/special teams units) are currently awarded 1 fantasy point for every 10 kickoff or punt return yards, along with 6 fantasy points for every touchdown. I'm guessing the owner who suggested this change either wanted to increase the amount of points given in these categories or was not aware that the scoring categories already existed.

d. Negative points for missed extra points - This scoring option does exist for placekickers on Fleaflicker (along with negative points for missed field goals based on quantity or distance). It can be included in next year's questionnaire.

e. Reducing the maximum number of quarterbacks on each team's active roster from three to two - This question was actually on the original draft of the 2023 questionnaire but was removed to keep the survey from being too long. It will be put up to a vote next year.

f. Remove punters - This is one of the rule change ideas that comes up a bit more frequently than other categories, but I enjoy the uniqueness of a fantasy league that values punters.

SUMMER 2022

2022 UFFL Questionnaire Results

Article Posted Saturday, Aug. 20, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern

Here are the results of the UFFL questionnaire poll questions, voted on by all 13 returning owners (besides commissioner Jared Byrd):

1. The current UFFL schedule has all 14 clubs playing everyone else in the league at least once during the regular season. Would you like to see the regular season schedule adjusted so that teams have 12 divisional games and two non-divisional games instead?

There were nine "yes" votes and three "no" votes (with one person forgetting to leave a response), so the 2022 UFFL regular season schedule will be adjusted to allow for many more divisional games.

2. As a result of the pandemic, the UFFL injured reserve list was expanded from three to six players for the 2020 and 2021 seasons. Should the injured reserve list continue to have a maximum of six players for the 2022 season or revert back to the three-player limit?

This was the closest vote of all: seven owners wanted to keep the injured reserve list at six players, with six owners wanting to go back to reduce the number of slots, so the current IR setup will remain in effect.

3. Currently, the UFFL Bowl (championship game) is held exclusively in Week 17 of the NFL season. Should this be expanded to a two-week event, covering Weeks 17 and 18 of the NFL calendar?

There were 10 "no" votes, three "yes" votes and one "doesn't matter" response, so the UFFL Bowl will not be expanded to a two-week event.

4. Would you want the UFFL to go back to an e-mail draft for the 2023 season?

Overwhelmingly (by a 12-1 vote), owners preferred to keep the live draft format instead of changing to an e-mail draft setup.

5. Are there any other changes you would like to see?

Most owners did not have additional suggestions, but here are some of the ideas that were mentioned, according to the commissioner:

a. Reduce the time limit for making draft picks from 1:30 (90 seconds) to 1:00 (60 seconds) - This is an excellent idea and one that I would not be opposed to, especially since the draft tends to drag a little bit during the later rounds.

b. Remove punters - Two owners actually mentioned this (and this is not the first year this idea has been mentioned), but I'd like to keep punters as a position since it's one of the things that makes this league unique.

c. Start from scratch (in other words, a year without any keepers) - If enough owners are interested in this idea, it could probably be pulled off as soon as 2023. Draft order would be determined by the standings from the previous year. Most owners here now were not around when the league launched on Yahoo! 20 years ago, so they may have inherited clubs that may not have had the greatest options from a keeper standpoint. We could vote on this idea before next year's questionnaire gets sent out.

d. Moving from a priority list waiver system to blind-bid waivers - This potential rule change was voted on 10 years ago but rejected at the time. However, since we have a number of owners who were not around back then, this is worth revisiting.

e. Set the injured reserve list at four players - This was mentioned by more than one owner, with some people feeling that three IR slots were not enough but six were too many. We will stick with six IR slots for the 2022 season (based on the results of the vote), but perhaps we could do something like this for future seasons:

2022 - six IR slots
2023 - five IR slots
2024 - four IR slots
2025 and beyond - three IR slots

f. Reduce positional limits - One owner mentioned reducing the maximum number of quarterbacks (from 3 to 2), running backs (from 6 to 5), wide receivers (from 6 to 5) and tight ends (from 3 to 2) that a team could carry on their active roster in order to strengthen the free-agent pool. For this proposal, each team would lose three bench slots, meaning that 42 players would theoretically be available as free agents. This idea could not go into effect until 2023 at the earliest, so it will appear on next year's questionnaire.

Back and better than ever

Article Posted Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 12:00 a.m. Eastern