And just like that, the 2026 UFL season is in the rear-view mirror. We head into what could be a relatively quiet off-season by spring football standards...or it could surprise us as last year did. Either way, let's kick off the off-season with a UFL News Hub Mailbag, where I answer questions posed to me on social media.
Some questions may be edited for length and/or clarity.
The Krahl asks, "Is the success of UFL kickers devaluing NFL kickers? Why draft one when I can pick one from the UFL? Except for the elite kickers, why sign multi-year deals with a kicker if they are available and proven in the UFL?"
Spring football has become known for developing specialists, notably kickers, that end up having success in the NFL. Brandon Aubrey, Jake Bates, Andre Szmyt and Harrison Mevis are among those that have solidified spots on NFL rosters and have a spring football background. Why use a draft pick or precious salary cap capital for a long-term deal when UFL kickers have proven, at times, to be just as good as their NFL counterparts? There could be a few reasons for this.
One, drafting and developing a kicker allows special teams coaches to work out the kinks or eliminate bad habits from that player before it's too late to change. ST coaches also likely do a lot more homework on college kickers coming into the NFL than they do those in the UFL, so there's a comfortability to bringing them in. In terms of giving out multi-year deals, NFL teams will generally take proven NFL commodities over unproven - even if successful - UFL kickers most of the time. After all, there's generally a reason or reasons why those players ended up in the UFL in the first place. While some UFL kickers have done well in the NFL, others haven't, and so it's a bit of the known vs. the unknown. Given the margin for error with NFL GMs and coaches is becoming thinner and thinner, they'll take the known more often than not.
PushThePace asks, "How likely is it we see a NY/NJ team with Repole’s ties to that market?"
UFL co-owner Mike Repole had ties to all three new UFL cities for 2026, so it stands to reason Repole, who is from New York City, would want a team in that region - if the league can make it work. But it's not just because of his ties that he'd want to go there - being in that market can open up a lot of doors and put more eyes on the league. Everything is more expensive in NYC, which can make it cost-prohibitive for a UFL still trying to pinch pennies in many ways. That being said, it's the largest television market in the United States, which carries a lot of value in TV viewership and the ability to secure sponsorship. Despite Repole listing Queens as a potential second new market for 2028, I'd be surprised if it happens so soon. Eventually, though, it's hard to see the UFL not going into that area at some point, even if it's not New York City proper.
SportsFan92 asks, "Thoughts on the rule on having to go for it on 4th down if the team crosses the 50?"
This seems like a good time to look back on the major rule changes implemented by the UFL in 2026. That includes one of the more controversial: No punting once a team crosses the 50, outside of two minutes in each half. I didn't hate the idea, but I was skeptical about how it would play out in practice. That said, I thought it largely worked to add drama and strategy to the game, as well as to increase scoring. It also created more opportunities for the four-point 60-yard field goal that otherwise would've been forsaken for a punt, so the two rules worked hand-in-hand in that way. There are always going to be purists who despise this kind of drastic change, and I can't fault them for that. But as an alternative league trying to capture the interest and attention of the general public, you have to think outside the box. This rule is a prime example of that thinking.
Between The Goalposts asks, "Do you think the UFL should adopt the CFL's punting rules for 2027?
-No fair catch
-5-Yard Halo around the returner
-Punts allowed to go out of bounds inside the 15 yard-line."
To stick with the rule change theme, the CFL has a few punting rules that harken back to XFL 2001, which famously had a "no fair catch" rule, but a less-publicized halo rule around the returner to protect them. I think if the UFL intends on making every play as action-packed as possible, that's a rule worth considering. Even with a halo rule, I think the idea of not allowing the receiver the ability to fair catch a ball puts in people's mind an unnecessary injury risk. One of the new punting rules for the UFL this year was that punts going out of bounds inside the 25-yard-line would be spotted at the 25, thereby eliminating coffin corner kicks. Again, the intent seems to be to have as much action as possible (i.e. force the returner to at least field the ball), but it proved to further handcuff punters' ability to show off skills that might interest NFL teams. The potential to coffin corner kick is one of them. That, in addition to limiting punts in general by not allowing them inside the 50, made this year's rule changes not so punter friendly. To answer the question, though, I'd be for simply eliminating the UFL rule on out of bounds punts inside the 25 as it is.
On a side note, if you're a fan of special teams, check out Between the Goalposts on Twitter/X, at @NoahBeauso. Terrific football content covering all sorts of leagues!
Ed Helinski asks, "What determines a successful UFL season for 2026? And what, if anything, could prevent a 2027 season and beyond?"
In the off-season, there's time to both look back at 2026 and look ahead to 2027. Ultimately, only ownership knows the answer to this question. They're the ones with all the information; we're just plebes going off of reports with limited access to things like ticket sales, sponsorship money, and all of the other financial aspects tied to the league. Repole has seemed positive in his press availabilities...but then again, so did XFL leadership in 2023 before they ended up merging with the USFL. So I'm not sure we can read a lot into the public comments from ownership, though Repole certainly appears to be more honest and open than others previously in his position. Personally, I think the increase in viewership across television has been a positive, and if indeed tickets sold is up despite overall attendance being down, that has to be a positive as well. I'd say I'm feeling more bullish on the UFL this off-season than I have perhaps in any other off-season. Based on what we know of 2026, I really don't think there's anything foreseeable that would result in the prevention of a 2027 season. Beyond? Well, that's up to ownership and how long they're willing to invest and how incrementally they're willing to see progress being made.
Trent Moore asks, "What would you put the odds at for my Birmingham Stallions to be back next season? Possibly a stadium change to the Hoover Met, back at Protective, or is the team gone? Second part of that question: IF the Stallions survive, odds A.J. McCarron is back as HC?
RammerJammer asks, "Where do the Stallions wind up and what will be their new name?"
Similar questions, with Trent a little more, ah, diplomatic than RammerJammer. Repole's comment that he's 80% sure all teams will be back in their markets next season leaves wiggle room to make a move or two (or three). For some fans, Birmingham is high on the list of concern (or perhaps like Rammer, "hope"). The biggest thing Birmingham has going for it is a great stadium deal. We've seen how important that is in the UFL. So if they stay in Birmingham (which I think they will, by the way), I don't see a stadium move unless they get a similar deal from Hoover Met, though that's still on the smaller side of capacity. I wrote about what I thought of A.J. McCarron's future in my Birmingham Stallions 2026 Season Summary. I think he's the least likely of the new coaches to return, just because he was not shy about showing his dissatisfaction at the way some things were handled by the league. Now, maybe those concerns are allayed in the off-season. In the end, I think he comes back for at least one more year, but I can't say my confidence is high about that.
Kyle Vick asks, "Do the Houston Gamblers move to Austin? Could the NFL Network or CBS possibly carry games? What are your top five expansion sites?"
Houston, along with Birmingham, are probably the top two cities of concern for the UFL in that we've seen these markets underperform for multiple years now. If the UFL does move a team this off-season it's likely to be one of those two, and of the two, I'd guess Houston. As for the "where," Austin is as good a guess as any. Q2 Stadium would be the play there, a 20,000-capacity soccer venue. Whatever decision the UFL makes on any move, they must make it quickly.
We already saw the NFL Network carry a few UFL games this season, and I'd imagine that continues into 2027 now that ESPN owns that channel. The downside is that it's not going to pull in a lot of viewers; the upside is the viewers that it does pull in are the hardcore football watchers who are stuck on the NFL Network in that league's off-season and maybe haven't sampled the UFL before. They'd be the most likely to become UFL fans, I'd say. FOX and ESPN own the UFL in large part to provide content for that specific time of year, so I don't necessarily see them farming out games unless a network (like CBS, for example) is willing to shell out big bucks to do so. With the UFL planning expansion over the next several years, that does bring up the question of where all these games end up. Clearly there won't be enough timeslots on ABC/ESPN or FOX to accommodate seven or eight games a week if and when the UFL expands to even 14 or 16 teams, much less the many more that Repole envisions. That may be a time where the league tries to sell packages elsewhere, whether on network TV, cable, or streaming.
Finally, expansion really needs to be done in areas of the country that allow the UFL to increase its footprint. Right now, for all intents and purposes, it's a regional league, and that's going to limit its growth potential. So I'd put a team in the pacific northwest, say, Seattle or Portland (or both!). Maybe one in Phoenix in the southwest. Go back to Michigan once that stadium is ready. And get some coverage in the northeast somewhere.
Agent Bluegrass asks, "Thoughts on a UFL team in the Big Sky market? North/South Dakota, Montana, Idaho etc."
The UFL has already flirted with Boise, making it one of the more likely future expansion franchises. The good thing that market has going for it is it's not saturated with a lot of options for sports fans. We've seen the UFL go into NFL cities and perform poorly, while non-NFL cities do well. That's not a hard and fast rule, but those markets that are hungry for pro football are the most likely to turn out year after year. The downside is you'd tend to have a smaller pool of people to draw from to get them to come to games. And it's not a major television market that would substantially increase ratings for games. It may not be fair, but those are considerations the league will likely make when selecting the next few markets.
@GreenGuyUFL asks, "Who gets to host the next United Bowl? I think just having the winning team host it the next year would be 100."
That's not a bad idea, though it's ultimately going to come down to venue availability. We've learned over the last few years that the UFL is not a priority tenant in most of the stadiums in which they play. That has the potential to narrow down the possibilities as to who gets the United Bowl year to year. Playing it on a neutral, non-UFL field would be intriguing but you're taking a big risk that a market without a UFL team would show out to a game, or that the fans of the two teams would travel well. Neither is a guarantee. So keeping it "within the family" so to speak is likely to continue into the future. The other option would be for the UFL to place next year's game in the yet-to-be-announced second expansion franchise city for 2028 (provided there's no ongoing construction as is taking place for Oklahoma City). That would help whet the appetite of fans in that locale.