New Fantasy Judgment decision – fantasy baseball issue (FAAB)

SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT

A-Holes & Pujols v. Mad Cow Disease 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALL-STAR FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE

Decided June 27, 2011

Cite as 3 F.J. 44 (June 2011)

Factual Background

A rotisserie fantasy baseball league called the Southern California All-Star Fantasy Baseball League (“SCAFBL”) is a mixed NL-AL non-keeper league comprised of 12 teams utilizing the standard 5×5 scoring categories to determine the standings and prize money.  For offensive players, the five categories are: (1) batting average; (2) homeruns; (3) runs batted in; (4) runs scored; and (5) stolen bases.  For pitchers, the five categories are: (1) wins; (2) earned run average; (3) WHIP (walks+hits/innings pitched); (4) strikeouts; and (5) saves.  Statistics are cumulative throughout the course of the season and there are no head to head games contained within the Roto league.

The SCAFBL operates under a written Constitution which outlines all of the league’s rules and guidelines.  Each league member was provided with a copy of the Constitution prior to the league’s draft which took place on March 27, 2011.  Included in the rules are provisions regarding the process and method of inputting transactions, including add/drops, placing players on the disabled list, and making trades with other teams.  The SCAFBL employs an auction bidding process for free agents where each league member was allotted $100 to use in bidding for available players throughout the season.  The following represents a condensed and concise summary of the pertinent Constitutional language that governs the transaction process:

• Each team is given a budget of $100 to use on players available on the waiver wire.
• Teams are restricted to a maximum of five transactions per week.
• All bids on free agents must be made before the conclusion of the final Sunday night game of the week.
• Teams must make their transactions in conformity with the league’s roster and lineup requirements.
• The bidding process will be managed, controlled and administered by the CBS Sports internal commissioner service.
• The bidding process is blind and no team shall have access or knowledge of other teams’ bids.
• The SCAFBL commissioner shall not have access to other teams’ bids.

On Saturday, June 25, 2011, A-Holes & Pujols placed a bid on free agent Dustin Ackley (2B-SEA) for $12 using the CBS Sports free agent auction bidding process.  As his corresponding move, A-Holes & Pujols sought to drop Ben Francisco (OF-PHI).  A-Holes & Pujols made no other free agent auction bids or any other transactions for the remainder of that week.

As usual, the free agent auction bidding process was run by CBS Sports on Sunday night, June 26, 2011.  Once the auction was complete, Mad Cow Disease (also the SCAFBL Commissioner) was awarded Dustin Ackley by winning the auction with a bid of $14.  As a result, A-Holes & Pujols’ bid for Ackley was denied and Francisco remained on their roster.

Procedural History

On Monday, June 27, 2011, A-Holes & Pujols sent out an email to the entire league accusing the Commissioner of abusing his power and outbidding him for Ackley.  The basis for A-Holes & Pujols’ contention is the allegation that the Commissioner has access to everyone’s bids and can manipulate the system where he can outbid any team for a free agent he so desires.

In response to this email, the Commissioner emphatically denied such accusations and reminded the league of the provisions laid out in the league’s constitution (which are also delineated above in the Factual Background).  A majority of league owners responded to the emails as well affirming the Commissioner’s decree and lashing out at A-Holes & Pujols for the undeserved accusations. 

A-Holes & Pujols still refused to accept this explanation and requested a league vote to resolve the issue.  The Commissioner rejected this request, so A-Holes & Pujols have contacted the Court to rule whether the Commissioner’s acquisition of Dustin Ackley should be upheld due to his alleged capability to see all competing bids.

Issue Presented

(1)   Should the Commissioner’s acquisition of Dustin Ackley be upheld?

Decision

The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment is a strong advocate for having written Constitutions that govern fantasy sports leagues.  See John Doe v. Fantasy Football League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 21, 22 (October 2010).  Having a written league constitution or charter helps ensure that “all league members are aware of the rules and guidelines in place, and it shifts the burden onto the league members to read, understand, and adhere to the rules that are delineated.”  See Shawn Kemp is My Daddy v. Fantasy Basketball League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 24, 25 (October 2010).  Here, the rules explicitly stated what the procedures are for the FAAB process, including the fact that the bidding is blind and not even the Commissioner has access to other teams’ bids.  Not only were they delineated by the Commissioner in the league’s Constitution, but they are also the fixed settings set forth by CBS Sports in their League Commissioner package.  See Green Eggs & Hamels v. Megan Fox is Hot, 3 F.J. 4, 6 (April 2011). 

The Commissioner does subject himself to added scrutiny simply by having such inherent power as making the rules and having access to the league’s internal structure and settings.  However, those who choose to participate in a fantasy league run by a Commissioner should presumably have implicit trust and faith in that Commissioner – otherwise it would be foolish to entrust one’s money and time in a fantasy league run by someone that is not trustworthy. 

Here, the Commissioner is also a league member, which is often the case.  As Commissioner, he must make decisions that are in the best interests of the league.  However, he is also entitled to manage his team to the best of his ability and try to win.  The Commissioner is subjected to the same rules that apply to everyone else, including the provisions of the free agent auction bidding process.  The Commissioner is allotted the same budget as the rest of the league, and he must go through the same bidding process as everyone else.  Additionally, there is no way for the Commissioner, or anyone else in the league, to have access to other people’s bids pursuant to the settings that were input.  Any bid placed by the Commissioner is as blind as A-Holes & Pujols, and every other member of the SCAFBL.

Further, there is no way for a team to track when another team actually makes their bid.  A-Holes & Pujols stated that he placed his bid for Dustin Ackley on Saturday, June 25.  It is unknown when Mad Cow Disease placed his bid.  Irrespective of that, it simply does not matter when the bids are placed so long as they are placed prior to when the auction runs, which is typically just after 1:00 AM EST.  At that point, the only thing system cares about when running the auction is who bid more for a certain player.  Based on the blind bids placed on Dustin Ackley, Mad Cow Disease won the auction and successfully acquired the Mariners’ young second baseman.  

A-Holes & Pujols went to the rest of the league to appeal this.  The Commissioner, despite being involved in the situation, denied A-Holes & Pujols’ request for a league vote on the issue.  The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment advocates for league Commissioners to have a certain amount of authority and autonomy to run and administer fantasy sports leagues.  See FlemishUSA v. League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 35, 36 (October 2010).  In this case, the Commissioner appropriately ruled on the issue by denying the request for a league vote, and instead adhered to the clearly established rules and guidelines that govern the league and the FAAB process. 

The league’s FAAB rules clearly demonstrate that Mad Cow Disease (a.k.a. the league Commissioner) properly acquired Ackley.  The Court hereby upholds the Commissioner’s decision and rules that the subject transaction should be upheld. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

New Fantasy Judgment decision – Fair and Balanced Schedule

SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT

 Machine v. LOEG Commissioner

 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN

 Decided September 9, 2010

Cite as 2 F.J. 8 (September 2010)

 Factual Background

A fantasy football league called the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (hereinafter referred to as “LOEG”) is comprised of ten (10) teams who compete against each other on a weekly basis during the National Football League (“NFL”) season using the statistics of professional players as a basis for accumulating points in head-to-head competition with opponents to determine which fantasy team won or lost.  The LOEG is hosted on the CBSSports fantasy football platform.  In using the CBSSports Commissioner services, the LOEG’s season schedule of games is randomly selected and generated by CBSSports without any input or influence from the LOEG, its Commissioner, or any of its league members.

The LOEG has a Constitution which delineates and outlines all of the rules and guidelines that govern the league, including the league’s weekly schedule.  The following is an excerpt from the Constitution regarding the number of games each team shall play in a given week:

3. REGULAR SEASON:

3.1       The league will consist of one division of ten teams.

3.2       There will be a thirteen week regular season.

3.3       Each Team will play two games per week.

3.4       If an owner fails to set up a legal starting lineup, the CBS recommendations will be used to set it.

3.5       All players are eligible at whatever position CBS Sports deems they are.

3.6       If a regular season game ends in a tie it will remain a tie.

3.7       Any scoring challenges may be made only until noon on the Wednesday following the game in question.

After the 2010 schedule was generated by the CBSSports software, Alex (hereinafter referred to as “Machine” or “Plaintiff”) voiced a concern regarding a discrepancy in the number of times he was scheduled to play Landry’s.  According to the plaintiff’s complaint, he is only scheduled to face Landry’s twice whereas other teams in the league are scheduled to face Landry’s three times.  Plaintiff argues that Landry’s is a considerably weaker team in the league and he is faced with an inherent disadvantage of only playing Landry’s twice while other opponents get to face Landry’s three times.

Procedural History

Besides arguing the miscarriage of justice in the number of times he plays against Landry’s, the plaintiff also makes some bold accusations towards the LOEG’s Commissioner.  Plaintiff contends that the Commissioner autonomously creates the league schedule to his own benefit by scheduling more matchups against Landry’s.  The net result of this alleged indiscretion is that the Commissioner successfully earns a playoff berth before he is ousted in the postseason when he can no longer control who his adversary is.  Plaintiff has filed this complaint and pleads with the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment to remedy the situation by instituting a triple-header week during the last week of the LOEG’s regular season.   

Issue Presented

(1)   Should a triple-header week be scheduled during the last week of the LOEG’s season to allow the plaintiff to face Landry’s for a third time?

Decision

The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment is a strong advocate for having written Constitutions that govern fantasy sports leagues.  There are a myriad of reasons why the Court believes having a Constitution in place is the best way to run and maintain a fantasy league.  One of the primary reasons behind this rationale is that all league members are aware of the rules and guidelines in place that govern the administration and function of the fantasy league.  When a league Commissioner writes out the rules and distributes them to the league, it shifts the burden onto the league members to read, understand, and adhere to the rules that are delineated.  If a league member has an issue, question or challenge to one of the rules in the Constitution, they are welcome to raise this with the Commissioner before signing it or agreeing to its codification. 

In this case, there clearly was a Constitution (or at the very least, a written set of rules and guidelines) that governs the LOEG.  Included in this Constitution was a provision for the league’s schedule and number of games played.  Section 3 of the Constitution clearly lays out the rules and guidelines for the number of weeks in the regular season and the number of games each team will play.  Rule 3.2 explicitly states that the regular season of the LOEG will consist of thirteen weeks.  Rule 3.3 explicitly states that each team will play two games every week.  Based on these two rules, each team is scheduled to play 26 games during the regular season.  In a ten-team league, this means that each team will play each other three times except for one team.  Here, it just so happens that the one team that plaintiff will only play twice is Landry’s.

According to witness testimony, the Commissioner elects to allow CBSSports to generate a league schedule.  Given the Court’s extensive knowledge and experience utilizing CBSSports software and commissioner services, the generation of a schedule done automatically by CBSSports is completely random within the boundaries and rules set forth by the Commissioner.  Therefore, the Court dismisses all allegations against the Commissioner for fixing or tampering with the weekly matchups.

With regard to the plaintiff’s prayer for relief in the form of a triple-header week during Week 13, the Court hereby denies such a request.  Granting plaintiff’s request is a direct contradiction to the rules delineated in the league Constitution.  The rules explicitly state that every team will play two games every week during the regular season.  Clearly, a triple-header does not comport with such rules.  Plaintiff should make the proposal, in writing, to the league and the Commissioner for consideration to amend the Constitution for next season.

Finally, this dispute represents the second formal complaint raised by the plaintiff against the Commissioner calling into question the Commissioner’s ethics and integrity.  While there does not appear to be any tangible evidence of malfeasance on behalf of the Commissioner, the Court is concerned about the ongoing relationship and co-existence of the plaintiff and Commissioner.  The Court recommends that the LOEG members keep a close eye on these two parties going forward to ensure there is no retaliation by the Commissioner against the plaintiff, as well as to ensure there are no frivolous allegations made by the plaintiff against the Commissioner.

The Court hereby decides that the league schedule shall remain as is.  The plaintiff’s request for a triple-header during Week 13 is denied. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.