The results of the 2024 DFL rules voting are in! There were just four rule proposals on the ballot — with three contingent votes — and three of the four have passed.
Let’s take a look at the results and my analysis of each one.
Note: As voted upon last year, all new rules go into effect in the following calendar year, so none of these rules will take effect until the 2025 season.
Proposals Passed
- Should we set a limit on the number of years in advance that a 2nd Round pick can be used as NFT compensation?
Contingent Proposal: How many years in advance should be allowed for 2nd Round Pick compensation for signing another team’s NFT?
By a vote of 9-3, DFL owners agreed that draft pick compensation for signing another team’s Nonexclusive Franchise Tag player should be limited to 2 years into the future. Or, to put it another way, 2 yet-to-be-completed drafts in advance. (The contingent vote passed by a 7-5 vote.) Owners felt that giving up a second round pick three years into the future didn’t adequately provide reasonable compensation for the team that loses its NFT player. (It should be worth noting, for those who did not know, that if a team didn’t have a second-round pick, they could still offer their own first-round pick instead. However, since first-round picks are quite valuable, it’s not likely any team is willing to part with a first-round pick to sign an expensive NFT player.) - Should we multiply FAAB cash by 100 in order to allow bidding tenths of dollars on players?
By a near-unanimous vote, owners voted to multiply FAAB cash by 100 in order to allow fractional in-season free agent contracts to match up with those given out at the Auction. This vote passed, 11-1. Free Agent bidding still needs to be done in multiples of 10, though, so if anyone bids, say, $125, that would be the equivalent of a $1.25 contract. Since that is an invalid contract, we would round DOWN to the nearest tenth, or $1.2. This new rule is a good one as it will allow owners more flexibility in signing in-season free agents so they don’t have to round up a whole dollar when submitting their bids. - Should we add an additional spot to the starting lineup?
Contingent Proposal: What kind of starting lineup spot should be added?
Owners passed a rule that will add an extra starting lineup spot, beginning in the 2025 season. This vote passed by a 7-5 margin. What kind of spot was chosen? By a 9-3 tally, owners elected to make this spot a FLEX position, giving teams 3 FLEX spots to fill. The rule will place an extra emphasis on building a deep roster, and the addition of the extra FLEX spot will allow owners with running back or tight end heavy roster builds the flexibility to play more of those positional players instead of needing more receiver depth.
Proposals Failed
- Should we reduce the number of playoff teams from 8 to either 7 or 6 teams and give the top one or two teams a bye?
By a margin of 7-5, owners turned down the idea of reducing the number of playoff teams, with most probably feeling they’d like more opportunities to make a late-season playoff run and getting hot at the right moment. For those owners nervous about bad playoff luck … well, best of luck sweating those close games out!
Also, for those curious, the result of the contingent proposal (how many playoff teams should there be if we do reduce?) was 7 teams. It was a 7-5 margin and it would have given only the top seed a first-round bye.