As of today, 2/17/26 at 11:14am, only 1 team, the Vikings, have checked on their team after receiving their warning. Good job, Vikes!!!

The following teams, if not checked on their team by 2/18/26 by 9 pm, will lose their teams.
Raiders, Chargers, Patriots, Bengals, Titans, Eagles, Seahawks, Packers, Bears, Lions and Panthers.

If you know of any ACTIVE owners, that want to join the league, please contact them as it is highly possible we'll have 11 teams that will need new owners at 9 pm tomorrow night. Have them sign the waiting list.
Thanks!!!

Sigh I think if we kick almost half the league it'll die let's hope not

Is there a difference between an ownerless team and a team with an inactive owner? Honest question.

Ole, that sounds like a great rhetorical question. This reminds me of the real NFL Cleveland Browns situation. They have an owner, he's very active as is the front office. Living in Cleveland, I often wonder if the guys and gals in the mailroom could run the team better and win more games than the owners and those working in the current front office. Without owners, and the meddling, don't the teams, without owners in MFN, sometimes do better than the acting owners?

That's exactly what I'm asking, Kos. If a team is ownerless, is it then run by some sort of default logic? Or do all the team settings from the last owner stay in place? I mean even if the ownerless teams are programmed to optimize depth charts, i think that would be an improvement over an inactive owner doing nothing.

I c ould imagine that Roster and Roster positions, personal weights, depth chart (especially overrides) remain unchanged. In game planning I'd say, rules and certain miscellanous sliders remain unchanged.
I'm not sure if plays remain untouched or if everything changes to recommended game plans.
Contract extension will not be made if the owner is only absent. AI managers would do that in a ridiculous manner.

Just my assumptions