Archive
Passing Judgment – The NFL Lockout’s Effect on Fantasy Football
Here are some of the questions and responses in the article:
Do you think the NFL lockout will affect your fantasy football league(s) this year? If so, how?
“Yes. It’s reducing interest in football, which naturally reduces the normally rabid league interest in fantasy football. Aside from any missed games and diminished interest, the lockout will ostensibly kill the preseason evaluation period. Most people in my league watch the preseason games to scout for draft steals, and I think the lack of a preseason will lower the overall quality of teams in our league.” – a 5-year fantasy veteran and Redskins fan in Washington, DC
“…Already has affected it…we usually get together to watch the draft…also, our league is a keeper league, which means roster management with trades can be a 12 month deal…no one is of the mind to talk trade…it’s a downer…” – an 18-year fantasy veteran and Steelers fan in Parkland, FL
“Every year I go to Waco, Tx for my fantasy football draft. Leading up to draft weekend, most of the participants have studied training camps, made offseason grades, and compiled their draft strategies (a couple even make notebooks). I travel the furthest for this annual ritual. This year we haven’t made our reservations (we typically rent a cabin, lake house, or stay out at someone’s ranch for the weekend), we don’t know what dates to begin blocking off the calendar, and we are forced to discuss basketball to fill the time.” – a 10-year fantasy veteran and Cowboys fan in Washington, DC
“We already decided to cancel the fantasy league and start a pool league on Monday nights. Both sides are greedy, bloodsucking, overpaid, egomaniacs that are destroying minimum wage jobs while they (complain) that they can’t live on only 20 million a year. What a bunch of sniveling little babies that don’t deserve any attention or respect.” – a 25-year fantasy veteran and Bears fan in Waikoloa, HI
“Most definitely it will. This is one of the aspects of NFL football that brings even casual fans closer to the game. I know some women, who can’t even tell you the rules of football, but play fantasy because they enjoy it. It’s kind of like filling out NCAA brackets, everyone does it. The NFL even markets fantasy, and I’m assuming spends millions on it. For instance everyone knows the classic T.J. “Who’s Your Mama” commercial. This is just one more aspect of the “golden goose” that this lockout will kill.” – a 5-year fantasy veteran and Redskins fan in Durham, NC
Has your league made contingency plans if the lockout stretches into August?
“Yes, we have a keeper league with non-standard rules that have necessitated that we already start planning for possible adjustments to our rules depending on whether or not there is a season and how long it is. We have already pretty much decided we must have a draft this August even if the labor dispute is unresolved at that time.” – an 11-year fantasy veteran and Redskins fan in Alexandria, VA
“We are going to try to find a fantasy UFL or college football league and if we do that there will be an asterisk on the trophy.” – an 8-year fantasy veteran and Redskins fan from Fisherville, VA
“Since our league is a fairly turnkey operation, we are flexible as to when we start. The only thing that will change will be the entry fee; Likely lowered based on number of weeks missed. So ultimately, the end-of-season prize pool may not be as large. That would be a disappointment.” – a 12-year fantasy veteran and Redskins fan in Silver Spring, MD
“Nope. We’re counting on the NFL getting it done. To quote Harold Camping, “There is no Plan B.”” – a 10+ year fantasy veteran and Redskins fan in Baltimore
This is just a small sample of the fantasy sports population. In the United States, there are approximately 27 million people who play fantasy sports, and a majority of those play fantasy football. By far, fantasy football is the most prosperous sport within the industry. If there is no NFL season, the ramifications could be disastrous to the fantasy sports industry, including the companies that provide services and the people who spend money to play. Obviously the fans want there to be football, but amongst those fans is a very important demographic of people who play fantasy football. The delay or cancellation of the season will have a far-reaching impact on many industries, and it is important to remember that the fantasy sports industry is one of them.
To my knowledge, this Washington Post column is one of the only articles written about the NFL lockout where the impact on fantasy football was addressed. I realize that fantasy football pales in comparison to the popularity of the NFL, but in many respects they are part and parcel to each other. The popularity of the NFL helped launch the massive growth and popularity of fantasy football. Additionally, the mainstream acceptance of fantasy football has given the NFL newer and more casual fans. The business and companies that write the fantasy magazines, create the draft boards, run the websites providing stats and advice, the websites that host leagues, make the trophies, host parties, and so on, will be in dire straits if the season is affected. While NFL fans will eventually go back to their teams and either watch games on TV or go to the stadium, the same cannot be as definitely said for the fantasy football companies. They may not have the flexibility or financial ability to close shop and reopen. Just something to think about.
Fantasy Judgment decision – November 24, 2010 (fantasy football trade issue)
` THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
John Doe v. Commissioner
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
AN ANONYMOUS FANTASY FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Decided November 24, 2010
Cite as 2 F.J. 49 (November 2010)
Factual Background
The plaintiff has submitted this case without providing any information about his league. The record is devoid of the following details: type of fantasy football league (i.e., keeper or non-keeper, salary/auction, etc.), platform where the league is hosted (CBS, Yahoo, ESPN), number of teams, roster requirements, point scoring system, records and rosters of the teams involved in the proposed trade, league rules or Constitution, league schedule, and trade approval and/or appellate process.
The plaintiff was offered Vincent Jackson (WR-SD) in a trade in exchange for Eli Manning (QB-NYG). Plaintiff accepted the trade which was then reviewed by the league’s Commissioner. According to the plaintiff, the Commissioner approved the trade on the basis that the trade was “fair for both parties.”
At an undisclosed time after the trade was approved, the plaintiff discovered that this trade had been cancelled. He was not contacted at any time by the Commissioner or the team he traded with. No reason was provided by anyone through any means of communication to explain what happened with the trade and why it was cancelled.
Procedural History
The plaintiff now seeks the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment’s opinion on whether the subject trade should be put through and its cancellation overturned. There have not been any additional submissions, evidence or testimony provided by anyone else in this fantasy football league.
Assuming the Commissioner has sole authority to approve or reject trades, he did not provide any notice either verbally or in writing that he was overturning his own decision to approve the trade. The plaintiff did not provide the Court with the league’s rules on trading, so the Court will have no choice but to make reasonable and prudent assumptions based on standard and customary fantasy football practices.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between the plaintiff and unnamed league member where the plaintiff acquired Vincent Jackson for Eli Manning be upheld and enforced?
Decision
The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment typically favors individual fantasy sports participants and teams’ ability to make moves, transactions, and trades. The standard of review has been that people pay money to purchase a team in a league, draft their team, and manage it accordingly. Whether success is bred from that individual’s decision-making is purely left to some skill, luck, dedication, and savviness. See Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 33 (June 2010).
Because the record is unclear, the Court must assume that the plaintiff and his fellow league members have paid money to participate in this fantasy football league. Therefore, the principles cited above will apply here where people are entitled to manage their teams how they see fit within the rules of the league and free from collusion.
The Court must always consider is whether there is any collusion or under-the-table dealings going on between teams. Since the Court has not been presented with any evidence or accusations of collusion, the Court concludes that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any other league member.
At first glance, the trade of Eli Manning in exchange for Vincent Jackson looks fair and reasonable. Because the Court was not provided with the rosters of these two teams, it is impossible to determine whether the needs of both teams were met or whether each team was dealing from an area of strength and depth. The Court must look at the two players involved and what their fair market value is both before the trade and their projected benefits after the trade. Eli Manning is having a season with extreme highs and lows. He is on pace to shatter his previous personal records for yards and touchdown passes, but he is also on pace to throw more than 20 interceptions. Granted, several were not his fault as the Giants’ wide receivers were failing to catch passes and instead tipped balls to their opponents. But Eli Manning has never been known for his offensive prowess, especially compared to his brother. With the loss of standout wide receivers Steve Smith and Hakeem Nicks for the next several weeks, Manning’s value has decreased. On the flip side, Vincent Jackson is scheduled to make his 2010 debut with the Chargers on Sunday night against the Colts on national television. Having several successful years under his belt already, Jackson joins the team as the #1 receiver for one of the most prolific passing quarterbacks of this era in Philip Rivers. Jackson should immediately becomes Rivers’ primary target and the recipient of lots of yardage on Rivers’ way to reaching 5,000 yards by the end of the year.
Given that the trade was fair, the Commissioner approved the deal – which was the right decision. Then, for reasons unknown to this Court, the trade was cancelled, much to the chagrin of the plaintiff. Unless a trade is either offered or accepted under the influence of drugs or alcohol, coercion, violence, or threats thereof, people cannot undo their trades just because they may have second thoughts about it. A deal is a deal, especially with the Commissioner’s approval.
Based on the miniscule amount of evidence presented and the facts of this case, the Court holds that the subject trade should be allowed and enforced. The Commissioner’s decision to cancel the trade (or whoever else may be responsible) should be overturned.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fantasy Judgment decision – October 28, 2010 (fantasy football roster and waiver wire drama)
` THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
George v. LOEG Commissioner
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN
Decided October 28, 2010
Cite as 2 F.J. 42 (October 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. The league rules regarding add/drops and transactions are delineated in the LOEG Constitution under Section 4 entitled “ADD/DROPS.” The following is the language of the rule within the LOEG Constitution:
4.2 Adding and dropping players to put them on the waiver wire and make them inaccessible to another owner is not acceptable, and will be reversed by the commissioner if he believes that to be the case.
Two weeks ago, the owner of LOEG team Tremendous emailed the LOEG’s Commissioner asking for permission to drop his kicker and pick up a player at another position. Such an action would cause Tremendous’s lineup to become illegal because the league rules require that each team have a kicker in their starting lineup. Tremendous qualified this request with the assurance that he would correct his lineup before games began at 1:00 PM that following Sunday. The LOEG Commissioner granted this request.
After learning of this decision, the owner of LOEG team George performed a similar move where he dropped a player at a position which made his lineup temporarily illegal until he corrected it during that Friday morning’s waiver wire run.
Both Tremendous and George claim that their transactions were not done with any intent to block a player or prove a point to anyone else in the league.
After the LOEG Commissioner approved both of these transactions made by Tremendous and George, the owner of LOEG team Machine distributed an email to the entire league threatening that if the Commissioner did not make a rule preventing such actions, then he would not carry a kicker on his roster until right before NFL games begin that week. Machine has done this for the past two weeks.
George addressed his concern with Machine’s actions by arguing to the LOEG Commissioner that Machine was violating Rule 4.2 regarding the prevention of other teams from acquiring players due to being placed on the waiver wire. The LOEG Commissioner replied that “everyone has been doing this.”
Procedural History
The plaintiff has filed this complaint seeking to compel the LOEG Commissioner to immediately create and enforce a rule that would prevent any team in the league from making their lineups illegal at any time. The plaintiff further argues that a new rule like this will help enforce Rule 4.2 of the LOEG Constitution, which contains the following language:
4.2 Adding and dropping players to put them on the waiver wire and make them inaccessible to another owner is not acceptable, and will be reversed by the commissioner if he believes that to be the case.
The LOEG Commissioner’s official ruling was, in pertinent part:
Rules are made before the season begins. It is bad policy to change rules mid-season. As stated, other teams did it all season. It is unfair to amend rules that we allowed other teams to take advantage of, and possibly win games because of. After the season I will visit these issues to prepare to next year. There is no way for me to know Alex’s intent. He is only doing what has been allowed over the past several weeks.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the LOEG Commissioner create a new rule during the current season to prevent any lineups from being illegal at any time despite having given permission on multiple occasions for teams to temporarily have illegal lineups?
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.
Here, the LOEG Constitution clearly states the rule regarding the prevention of hoarding players and the methods for dealing with such circumstances. Although the written rule does not contain language that specifically refers to the intent of an individual, it can certainly be implied that the rule is in place to allow the Commissioner to prevent any acts of intentional blocking of players on the waiver wire. The rule permits the Commissioner to subjectively decide whether there is implicit intent on behalf of the alleged perpetrator. When Tremendous and George asked for permission to temporarily have an illegal lineup, the Commissioner granted these requests and presumably did not suspect any wrongdoing or intent to block the waiver wire.
Machine’s response to these actions was both understandable and improper at the same time. Machine clearly disagreed with the Commissioner’s decisions to permit Tremendous and George to have temporary illegal lineups until the day that NFL games began that week. He publicly voiced his protests and acted on his threat to drop his kicker every week until right before lineups and rosters lock for the week. George then protested Machine’s actions citing the rules and accusing Machine of intentionally blocking the waiver wire. Machine decided to take action by doing what he felt was permissible according to the Commissioner’s precedent for granting such requests to Tremendous and George. The difference is that Tremendous and George only did this for one week whereas Machine has been doing this vindictively for several weeks now.
George’s request for a mid-season rule change is both hypocritical and improper. Machine’s actions affect George and every other team as they all compete for the LOEG playoffs. George, understandably upset at the no-bluff position taken by Machine, saw no problem with his own personal request to do such a thing with his lineup. Now he sees Machine taking such action, without permission, and is requesting a new rule to prevent such actions from taking place at all.
As was mentioned before, the LOEG has a written Constitution which all members received and contains the league’s rules. The Constitution also permits the Commissioner to appropriately handle any issue of first impression not addressed in the Constitution, unless he himself is personally involved in the issue. Here, the Commissioner is a neutral party to the dispute so he was able to make a decision regarding the request for a new rule on his own. More importantly, “there is no valid reason to change the rules during the middle of the season outside of extreme and unforeseeable consequences.” See John Doe v. Fantasy Football League Commissioner, 2 F.J. 21, 22 (October 2010). The Court would only support changing or adding to the rules in mid-season if it is the only option to prevent a complete mutiny or meltdown of a fantasy league. The rule was written in the Constitution not permitting teams from doing what Tremendous and George did. However, the Commissioner utilized his autonomous powers by allowing them to make such moves. The Commissioner consciously felt that Tremendous and George were not doing anything shady, and therefore, granted the requests.
On the other hand, Machine’s actions were deliberate in response to the Commissioner’s decision and have lasted several weeks. However, the net results of Machine’s actions are no different than the net results of what was done by Tremendous and George. Creating a new rule to prohibit such activity after it was already allowed during the season is not fair to the other teams in the league who did not have the opportunity to try and benefit from such action. That is not to say all other teams would have or will do so, but enforcing a new rule will absolutely preclude them from such action. The LOEG Commissioner utilized his authority to make exceptions to Rule 4.2, which he is entitled to do. Since he has already opened the door to allowing exceptions and essentially bypassing the enforcement of that rule, he cannot unring the bell.
The Commissioner has admitted that he will revisit this issue and the rules in place during the off-season. But he is correct in his hesitation to change the rules during the season and begin enforcing a new rule after what has already occurred. Part of the Commissioner’s responsibilities include recognizing when the time is right for an intervention of his power and authority. Here, he has already usurped his own power by going against the rules that he wrote, which technically is fine so long as it is applied consistently to the entire league. If there was a new rule put in place, the Commissioner would then be prejudicing the other teams in the league that never received the benefit of bypassing Rule 4.2.
The Commissioner’s decision not to create a new rule during the season to prohibit activity that he himself has already allowed is affirmed. A reminder can be sent out to the rest of the league citing to Rule 4.2, and hopefully the other league members will continue to adhere to this rule as they have done all season. But once the Commissioner implicitly and explicitly allowed Tremendous, George and Machine to temporarily have illegal rosters, he opened the door to everyone because the rules should apply equally to all league members. Additionally, the Commissioner does have constitutionally-written authority to intervene if he feels there is intent to block the waiver wire. He still may utilize this authority if there is sufficient evidence of such activity. Machine’s actions raise a red flag and are subject to the scrutiny of the LOEG Constitution. A distinction would have to be made by the Commissioner differentiating the actions by Tremendous and George as opposed to Machine’s potential egregious intent to block the waiver wire. Based on the evidence presented, the Court’s affirmation of the Commissioner’s decision not to change the rules mid-season is made with the best interests of the league in mind.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fantasy Judgment decision – October 26, 2010 (fantasy football trade dispute)
THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Silveramo v. Nation
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
AN ANONYMOUS FANTASY FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Decided October 26, 2010
Cite as 2 F.J. 38 (October 2010)
Factual Background
A complaint has been filed by a member of an anonymous fantasy football league (hereinafter referred to as “FFL”) challenging a trade made between two other teams. It is unknown what website the FFL is hosted on. The complaint is also devoid of additional information regarding the structure of the league, including whether it is a keeper league or how many teams there are. It is also unknown what the FFL’s rules are regarding trades and the approval process. There is no reference to a league Constitution and no rules or guidelines were provided in the complaint.
Starting lineups in the FFL consist of the following: QB (1), RB (2), WR (2), TE (1), FLEX (1 – RB/WR/TE), K (1), and DEF/ST (1). The scoring system for the FFL is as follows:
Passing
Touchdown = 4 points
Every 40 Yards = 1 point
Bonus at 300 Yards = 3 points
Rushing/Receiving
Touchdown = 6 points
Every 20 Yards = 1 point
Bonus at 100 Yards = 3 points
Touchdown Bonuses
Passing, Rushing, Receiving TD of 40-59 Yards = 2 points
Passing, Rushing, Receiving TD of 60-79 Yards = 4 points
Passing, Rushing, Receiving TD of 80+ Yards = 6 points
Receptions
Each reception = .5 points beginning with the 4th reception.
0-3 catches = 0 points
4 catches = 2 points
5 catches = 2.5 points
The plaintiff has challenged a trade made between Silveramo, the 1st place team in his division (5-2), and Nation, the 3rd place team in his respective division (4-3). Silveramo has offered to trade LeSean McCoy (RB-PHI), Ben Roethlisberger (QB-PIT), and Brandon Lloyd (WR-DEN) to Nation in exchange for Chris Johnson (RB-TEN), Kevin Kolb (QB-PHI), and Jeremy Maclin (WR-PHI).
Procedural History
The complaining party, on behalf of the rest of the FFL, is challenging the validity of this trade. Specifically, they question how this trades improves Nation who gave up Chris Johnson, arguably the best running back in the NFL (and the likely #1 draft pick in most fantasy football leagues this season), in exchange for LeSean McCoy who is on a bye this coming week (Week 8). Additionally, the complaining party argues that Nation does not need Brandon Lloyd because, according to the complaint, “he has great receivers.” The receivers on Nation’s roster at the time of this proposed trade include Anquan Boldin (WR-BAL), DeSean Jackson (WR-PHI), and Roy Williams (WR-DAL). Finally, the complaining party argues that Ben Roethlisberger constitutes an upgrade at quarterback over Donovan McNabb and Matt Ryan. However, he questions the significance of this upgrade when only one quarterback is in the starting lineup every week.
It was conceded in the complaint that there is no suspicion of collusion or cheating between Silveramo and Nation. The nature of the complaint is whether the trade was intelligently entered into.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between Silveramo and Nation be approved?
Decision
The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment typically favors individual fantasy sports participants and teams’ ability to make moves, transactions, and trades. See Smittydogs v. Moneyball, 1 F.J. 32, 33 (June 2010). The standard of review has been that people pay money to purchase a team in a league, draft their team, and manage it accordingly. Whether success is bred from that individual’s decision-making is purely left to some skill, luck, dedication, and savviness. The Court also acknowledges that the analysis for evaluating trades is much different in a keeper league than a non-keeper league. A trade that may look uneven or lopsided on its face may receive a different opinion when it is involved in a keeper league. The reasons for this are obvious, but must be restated. In a keeper league, teams that are having unsuccessful seasons are more likely to continue to pay attention and make moves that will set themselves up for better success in the following season. They can do this by acquiring young talent that is not under contract within the league, or by dumping salary (assuming it is an auction league) and allowing greater financial flexibility to sign key players in the next season’s draft. In non-keeper leagues, there is no rationale for thinking ahead, nor is there any need to stockpile young, inexpensive talent. However, it is not known whether the FFL is a keeper league or not. As a result, the standard of review will assume that it is not a keeper league and the Court will analyze the players involved in the trade based on their current and past statistics and performance as opposed to projections for future NFL seasons.
Another factor that the Court must always consider is whether there is any collusion or under-the-table dealings going on between teams. As stated above, the complaining party has admitted that there are no allegations of collusion or cheating. Therefore, the Court will forego an analysis into this scenario.
At first glance, the trade of LeSean McCoy, Ben Roethlisberger and Brandon Lloyd in exchange for Chris Johnson, Kevin Kolb and Jeremy Maclin looks fair and even. The eye-catcher in this deal is clearly Chris Johnson, arguably the best running back in the NFL in both reality and in fantasy. Any trade involving the #1 overall pick and most dominant fantasy player is going to create controversy and invite skepticism. However, when the numbers and statistics are broken down, Johnson and McCoy are practically even.
Rush Yds Receptions Rec. Yards Touchdowns
Chris Johnson 662 17 66 7
LeSean McCoy 477 38 293 5
Johnson’s success has made him a target for NFL defenses, and it is obvious that teams are focusing on shutting Johnson down to prevent his prototypical breakout run. This means that putting up similar statistics to what he did in 2009 will almost be impossible. On the other hand, LeSean McCoy has become the focus of the Philadelphia Eagles offense in both the passing and running games. Cumulatively, McCoy currently has more total yards (770) than Johnson (728), has double the number of receptions, and is almost identical in scoring touchdowns. Consequently, there is not much of a drop-off at all in trading Johnson for McCoy. The argument that this makes no sense because McCoy has a bye week this weekend is speculative. While it is true that the Eagles have their bye week, analyzing the rationale as to why this trade was made and when it was made is a process that the Court refuses to do.
To help make up the perceived difference in trading Johnson, Nation was able to acquire Ben Roethlisberger and Brandon Lloyd. Roethlisberger is certainly an upgrade over Kolb as Big Ben has almost eclipsed Kolb’s statistics despite playing in three less games. Big Ben is also an upgrade over the other two quarterbacks that he now shares a fantasy roster with – Donovan McNabb and Matt Ryan. The question over the sensibility of this trade because teams only start one quarterback per week is unfounded. Any fantasy football participant has the right (so long as the roster and rules allow it) to accumulate as many backups for position depth, injuries, and trade bait. Nation’s acquisition of Brandon Lloyd was also needed because DeSean Jackson is questionable for the near future due to the severe concussion he sustained during Week 6. Nation clearly needed a wide receiver, and since the Eagles are off this week, he included Jeremy Maclin in the deal for Lloyd, who will immediately become a starter. His needs were clearly served and he got fair market value for Chris Johnson.
The exchange of fair value is also demonstrated by Silveramo’s acquisitions from his perspective. He acquired Kolb when he already has Michael Vick. The Eagles have shown that they can score points no matter who is playing quarterback. Having both the starter and backup ensures that Silveramo will have an effective starting quarterback every week. Acquiring Jeremy Maclin gives Silveramo a good QB-WR combination, which is just as effective no matter who the quarterback is in Philadelphia.
More importantly, the complaining party has admitted that he is not challenging this trade based on collusion, cheating or any other reason besides it being dumb. The scope of the Court’s authority is to govern and advise when there is a dispute as to the validity of trades, rulings, decisions or other issues that arise within fantasy sports leagues. Making a judgment on whether an individual did something stupid is not what the Court does. As stated earlier, teams should be given the opportunity to make deals and try and improve their teams, even if that means they will make unintelligent decisions from time to time.
Based on the fact that the players involved in the trade are fair and equal coupled with the admission that the complaining party seeks Court intervention due to the trade allegedly being “stupid,” the Court hereby decides that the subject trade is fair and should be allowed. The subjective reasons why teams make trades should not be speculated about unless there is tangible evidence of collusion and the nature of the complaint provides sufficient information and background to corroborate such a story.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fantasy Judgment decision – October 17, 2010 (fantasy football issue)
THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
Get Shorty & Iceman v. Joker’s Wild
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN
Decided October 17, 2010
Cite as 2 F.J. 28 (October 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. The league rules regarding setting a starting lineup are delineated in the LOEG Constitution under the Section 3 entitled “Regular Season.” The following is the language of the rule within the LOEG Constitution:
3.4 If an owner fails to set up a legal starting lineup, the CBS recommendations will be used to set it.
At 1:05 PM on October 17, 2010, Get Shorty visited the LOEG website on CBSSports and turned on the “Live Scoring” function to view his opponent’s lineup. He noticed that there was a note from the league stating that his opponent (Joker’s Wild) had an illegal lineup.
At 1:06 PM on October 17, 2010, Get Shorty sent a text message to the owner of team George, who happens to be the father of the team owner of Joker’s Wild. Get Shorty inquired with George as to what was going on since there was apparently an illegal lineup.
At 1:13 PM on October 17, 2010, Iceman visited the LOEG website on CBSSports and also noticed it said Joker’s Wild had 0 points due to an illegal lineup. Iceman noted that one of the bench players on Joker’s Wild’s roster was incorrectly listed as a Flex player instead of a WR (Brandon Lloyd-DEN).
By 1:30 PM, Joker’s Wild changed Brandon Lloyd’s position from Flex to WR, thus making his roster legal. CBSSports allowed Joker’s Wild to make this change without the need for Commissioner override. Iceman speculated that within minutes of George being made aware of his son’s illegal lineup, George called Joker’s Wild and notified him to correct it. Iceman insinuates that this is indicative of potentially ongoing collaboration between George and Joker’s Wild.
In the event Joker’s Wild had an illegal starting lineup, the rules state that the CBS recommendations would be used based on the projected number of points each player had. Coming into the week, Brandon Lloyd was projected to have 10.1 points for the week while DeSean Jackson was projected for 6.6 points. In the case of an illegal starting lineup, Lloyd would be the default option by CBSSports because he was projected to have more points than Jackson.
Under the rules of the LOEG and CBSSports, players can be moved in and out of starting lineups as long as those players’ NFL games have not begun for the week.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs, Iceman and Get Shorty, have filed this complaint arguing that Joker’s Wild had an illegal lineup from the start of the week and should not have been permitted to change his lineup after the 1:00 PM games began. Plaintiffs cited Section 3.4 of the LOEG Constitution as the basis for their complaint. In the complaint sent by the LOEG Commissioner to the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment on behalf of the plaintiffs, Get Shorty refers to Section 3.4 and recites the language as following:
3.4 If an owner fails to set up a legal starting lineup, the CBS recommendations will be used to set it.
The plaintiffs have conceded that Joker’s Wild, and any other team in the LOEG, can make changes to their respective lineups after the 1:00 PM games have started. The concession is with regard to players whose games have not started yet by the time lineups are amended. Plaintiffs contend that Joker’s Wild’s lineup was illegal from the start and the CBS recommendations should dictate who is in Joker’s Wild’s starting lineup.
The LOEG Commissioner’s official ruling was, in pertinent part:
“It was only a bench player listed as Flex instead of WR that made his lineup illegal. CBS allowed him to fix it on his own without Commissioner override. He had DeSean as the starter prior to gametime. If the move was illegal, CBS would not have permitted it. The official ruling is that Joker’s Wild can play DeSean Jackson today.”
Issue Presented
(1) Should the LOEG Commissioner’s decision to permit Joker’s Wild to correct his illegal lineup and keep DeSean Jackson as a starter be upheld?
(2) Is there collusion between George and Joker’s Wild?
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.
Here, the LOEG Constitution clearly states the rule regarding the consequences of having an illegal starting lineup. As cited before, Section 3.4 of the LOEG Constitution states that “if an owner fails to set up a legal starting lineup, the CBS recommendations will be used to set it.” There is no ambiguity behind the meaning or interpretation of this rule.
In the complaint filed with this Court, plaintiff Get Shorty cited Section 3.4 but misquoted the exact language of the rule. Get Shorty omitted the word “starting” when referring to a legal lineup in his complaint. This omission is crucial in the Court’s decision. Because the language of the rule is clearly stated in the LOEG Constitution, the Court will accept that language of the rule as true and exact. As a result, Get Shorty’s misstatement of the rule will be deemed an error. The issue at hand has to do with a player on Joker’s Wild’s bench being categorized incorrectly as a Flex instead of a WR. There is no dispute that the starting lineup propounded by Joker’s Wild was accurate and proper.
When Joker’s Wild was made aware of this predicament, he went into CBSSports and was able to make the necessary changes to his roster without the need for assistance or approval from the LOEG Commissioner. This took place at some point between 1:15 – 1:30 PM on October 17, 2010 – either way, it was after that day’s games had already started. The fact that the players at issue who were either changed or modified were players whose games had not yet begun when Joker’s Wild made the changes.
The mere fact that the league rule explicitly refers to an illegal starting lineup and there is no dispute as to whether Joker’s Wild’s starters were correct and proper at the time, the Court will easily affirm the LOEG Commissioner’s overall decision. There was no harm or prejudice to either of the plaintiffs because Joker’s Wild’s intent was to start DeSean Jackson, and that is what he did. There was nothing remotely illegal about his starting lineup. If there was an issue with the positional denotation of his bench players, then that issue was resolved when Joker’s Wild went into his roster and made the changes that he was allowed and entitled to make.
A far more critical issue is one that this Court has previously addressed regarding the alleged collusion between George and Joker’s Wild. There have been two prior cases heard by this Court regarding challenges to trades made between George and Joker’s Wild. The nexus of these complaints has been the fact that George is the father of Joker’s Wild. As stated in Jetnuts v. George, et al., the fact that two team owners who are related made a trade is perfectly within the rules as well. That being said, George, as the LOEG Commissioner, must make decisions that are in the best interest of the league and not himself or his son. The fact that the subject issue involved his son and he made his decision which favored his son has led to continued and ongoing allegations of collusion.
As stated in prior litigation involving George and Joker’s Wild:
“the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment is an advocate for all things that are fantasy sports, and we especially encourage participation in fantasy sports amongst family members, including generational participation. The fact that a father and son are in a league together should not cause or create any additional skepticism unless such skepticism is truly warranted and deserved.”
There have been two prior trades between George and Joker’s Wild that the Court approved due to the fact that the trades were fair and there was no perception of collusion or any other under-the-table dealings between the teams. This complaint further alleges that George gave his son notice of the alleged illegal lineup which allowed him to make the necessary changes before the bench players could not be changed due to the 4:00 PM games starting. There is no concrete or definitive proof that George did in fact provide this notice with such intent. However, the inference can be made. The Court will not go so far as to conclude that there is some form of collusion between George and Joker’s Wild. However, the Court strongly reiterates its prior recommendation to the LOEG Commissioner to deal with this issue publicly so as to maintain the integrity of the league and avoid a complete loss of control.
The Commissioner’s decision to permit Joker’s Wild to keep DeSean Jackson in his starting lineup is affirmed because there was nothing illegal about his starting lineup. Based on the evidence presented, this decision was not made based on a collusive effort between the teams. However, the Court’s concerns and recommendations are noted above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fantasy Judgment decision – October 13, 2010
THE SUPREME COURT OF FANTASY JUDGMENT
John Doe v. Fantasy Football League Commissioner
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE GRIDIRON FANTASY FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Decided October 13, 2010
Cite as 2 F.J. 21 (October 2010)
Factual Background
A fantasy football league called the Gridiron Fantasy Football League (hereinafter referred to as “Gridiron”) 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. Gridiron is hosted on the Yahoo fantasy football platform. The league’s roster requirements contain 14 spots which include the following weekly starters: QB (1), RB (2), WR (3), RB/WR (1), TE (1), K (1), DEF (1), and IDP (1). In addition to these eleven starting positions, each team is only entitled to three reserve spots which can be comprised of any eligible players. These specific rules and parameters have been in place since 2004.
There is no formal league Constitution which delineates the rules, requirements and guidelines of the league. Rather, the league Commissioner inputs this information through Yahoo and it is made available to all teams upon successfully registering their teams on the league’s website after the Commissioner sends out invitations. This information is available at all times. The league Commissioner arbitrarily sets up the parameters of the league, including the number of players eligible on the roster. There is no process for challenging such decisions, and there is no available method of voting to approve any such decisions. By registering for the league and participating in the draft, the other league owners tacitly assent to the rules created by the league Commissioner.
Before participating in the league draft, as well as continuing on an ongoing weekly basis when decisions are to be made for each team’s starting lineup, information is made publicly available regarding the NFL schedule, specifically which teams have a bye on a particular week. Gridiron league members must make corresponding roster moves to ensure they have a lineup of players that are active each week. Additionally, it is common practice to strategize before and during the fantasy football draft regarding the NFL schedule so as to not select too many players that share a similar bye week. In the event a league member has more than three players on a bye week, the result will be an automatic 0 points for that unfilled starting roster spot. This information and the resultant consequences is known to all league members.
Procedural History
During NFL Week 5, the Pittsburgh Steelers, Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks all had their annually scheduled bye week (See www.nfl.com/schedules). The plaintiff in this case, who has requested to remain anonymous, had a roster that contained Tom Brady (QB-NE), Wes Welker (WR-NE), Hines Ward (WR-PIT), Brandon Marshall (WR-MIA), and Pittsburgh’s defense. Because the league only permits three bench players and the plaintiff did not want to drop any of these aforementioned players, the plaintiff was forced to have two positions in his starting lineup that were not active, and thus, he received 0 points from them.
The plaintiff subsequently lost his Week 5 matchup by 12 points according to the scoring system put in place by the league Commissioner. Based on past performances and projected statistics, it is likely that the plaintiff would have won his Week 5 game had he been able to fill a starting lineup of all active players.
The plaintiff has filed this complaint with the Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment seeking a mid-season amendment to the rules of the league by allowing additional roster spots for more bench players.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the league rules be modified in mid-season to accommodate additional roster spots?
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.
Despite not having a formal document that codifies all of the league’s rules and guidelines, the Gridiron league Commissioner did set the rules up well before the draft and posted them on the league’s website for everyone to see. This process does constitute notice for the league members that they are aware of the rules. It also demonstrates that league members have knowledge that the Commissioner is the ultimate authority for decision-making and that there is no formal appellate process within the league.
Irrespective of whether there is a valid reason to increase the number of roster spots, there is no valid reason to change the rules during the middle of the season outside of extreme and unforeseeable consequences. Here, the fact that the plaintiff did not have enough eligible starting players was clearly foreseeable and was a direct result of his own contributory negligence. Changing rules, especially ones that are so vital to the foundation of the league, should not be done in the middle of a season unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice that warrants an immediate amendment to an existing rule. There is no such prejudice, harm, or undue burden on the plaintiff or any other league member that would warrant such drastic action. That being said, this is an issue that should be addressed during the off-season and before the Commissioner sets up the parameters for the 2011 season. If there is enough desire for additional roster spots, then the plaintiff and his fellow league members should collectively address the issue with the Commissioner in a logical and pragmatic manner. The Commissioner will still maintain the ultimate authority whether to implement such changes, but at the very least the forum will be more appropriate to discuss such an issue when the fantasy football season is not ongoing.
The rules of the league are clear and the plaintiff tacitly agreed to them by accepting the invitation to re-join the league. He had every opportunity to plan his draft according to the NFL schedule, as well as make subsequent transactions to modify his roster in anticipation of the Week 5 teams on their bye. The Court hereby decides that the rules regarding roster requirements and bench spots shall not be modified or amended during the 2010 fantasy football season. The resulting loss suffered by the plaintiff during Week 5 shall stand and no further action is required by the Gridiron league Commissioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Fantasy Judgment Decision – Family Ties
Jetnuts v. George and Joker’s Wild
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN
Decided September 21, 2010
Cite as 2 F.J. 15 (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 earliest a trade between LOEG teams can be accepted and finalized to become effective for the upcoming week is on Tuesday (after the previous week’s games have been officially completed).
On Sunday, September 19, 2010, fellow LOEG teams George (father) and Joker’s Wild (son) were watching NFL games together when they engaged in discussions about a trade involving Michael Vick and Percy Harvin. At some point on this date, George and Joker’s Wild agreed in principle on the trade where George would trade Michael Vick to Joker’s Wild in exchange for Percy Harvin. Both parties understood that the trade could not be formally made official until Tuesday, September 21, 2010.
On Monday, September 20, 2010, LOEG team Jetnuts reached out to George and offered Pierre Garcon for Michael Vick. George responded that he already had committed to trading Vick to another team.
On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, George and Joker’s Wild finalized their trade of Michael Vick for Percy Harvin. After the trade was finalized, George made a trade offer to Jetnuts of Percy Harvin for Pierre Garcon. Concurrently, Jetnuts also made a trade offer of Pierre Garcon for Michael Vick.
Procedural History
As per the rules of the LOEG, trades and trade offers must be made through the league’s website on CBSSports.com or when both teams involved in the trade independently inform the LOEG Commissioner. Under CBSSports’ settings, trades entered on Tuesday will go into effect for the upcoming week’s games. Trades are permitted between any team so long as that team is still mathematically eligible to reach the LOEG playoffs. Additionally, trades must not be made under the auspices of collusion or “under the table” agreements between teams.
The Jetnuts are not challenging the fairness of the trade between George and Joker’s Wild. Rather, the Jetnuts are challenging the validity and process of the trade claiming that it is inherently unfair to compete for trade possibilities with team owners that are related to each other. Given the nature of the complaint and the language used by the plaintiff in its pleading, the Court will not consider collusion in its analysis as there is no evidence of any such activity.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the trade between George and Joker’s Wild be revoked due to the process in which the trade was agreed to and finalized?
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, the LOEG’s Constitution clearly delineates the rules and guidelines for making trades between teams. While CBSSports.com dictates when trades can be input in order to become effective for the upcoming week’s teams, there are no known restrictions on when teams can begin negotiating trades. The fact that George rejected the Jetnuts trade offer because he had previously committed to making a trade with his son is perfectly within the rules of the league. Going one step further, it also demonstrates integrity by the fact George kept his verbal agreement to trade with his son and provide an immediate response to the Jetnuts in order to allow the Jetnuts to pursue an alternative deal.
The fact that two team owners who are related made a trade is perfectly within the rules as well. There is no reason to hold family members under any additional scrutiny when making trades outside of evidence supporting a collusive effort. Here, no evidence of collusion has been presented to warrant such an investigation or analysis. While family members may have more direct contact and communication than other members of the league, that does not inhibit or prevent teams from making deals with those family members. Here, George and Joker’s Wild agreed in principle to make the trade of Michael Vick for Percy Harvin. They are allowed to make this trade as it does not violate any rules in place that govern the league.
The plaintiff also argues that subsequent trade offers indicate or infer certain desires of George and/or Joker’s Wild regarding their intent. These arguments are speculative in nature and irrelevant to the analysis of whether this trade was fair and compliant with the requisite process.
The Court hereby decides that the trade between George and Joker’s Wild should be upheld as it is both fair in value and was made in compliance with the LOEG’s rules.
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.
Afraid of Change vs. Fantasy Football League
Afraid of Change v. Fantasy Football League
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM
A FANTASY FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Decided September 26, 2009
Cite as 1 F.J. 11 (2009)
Factual Background
An anonymous fantasy football league (hereinafter referred to as “fantasy league”) is hosted on Yahoo’s fantasy sports platform. The league is organized and run by an anonymous commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “commissioner”) who input several settings on Yahoo’s fantasy commissioner program. This fantasy football league is comprised of twelve teams, each consisting of fifteen players on a roster. There are point values associated with various NFL statistics, including touchdowns, yards, receptions, field goals, defensive achievements, etc.
As part of the structure of the league, the commissioner established that all twelve teams would compete within one division and against each other. The commissioner determined that only four teams out of twelve will make the playoffs and be eligible to earn money prizes. The parameters of this league were distributed to all team owners several weeks prior to the draft, which took place on August 31, 2009. No contracts or written agreements were entered by league members when accepting invitations or renewing their participation in the league.
After three weeks of the season elapsed, the commissioner announced to the league via email and message board posting that an additional two teams would also make the playoffs at the end of the season. Instead of 33% of the league gaining a playoff berth and eligibility for cash prizes, now 50% of the league would fall into this category. No other structural change to the league accompanied this announcement. The league schedule remained the same, the results of the prior games remained the same, the scoring structure remained the same, and all other rules remained the same. The difference is that the first two ranked teams will receive a bye in the first round of the playoffs and face off against the winners of the other games. There will still be four teams that receive cash prizes at the end of the season.
Procedural History
This decision was made autonomously by the commissioner without consulting any other league members. There is no fantasy league constitution in place which would explicitly preclude the commissioner from making a change to the structure or foundation of the league.
Given there is no league vote or opposition allowed to a rule change, the other league members have no recourse prescribed within the confines of the league to challenge the commissioner’s rule change.
An anonymous member of the fantasy league has contacted Fantasy Judgment to determine whether the commissioner’s decision should be allowed.
Issue Presented
(1) Should the fantasy league commissioner’s decision to change the number of playoff teams after the season started be upheld?
Decision
The Supreme Court of Fantasy Judgment is consistently presented with questions about a league commissioner’s powers to enact, enforce, and modify rules within the league without any challenge to his/her decision. In most instances, the Court will side with the commissioner assuming the commissioner’s motives are benevolent and it is in the best interests of the league overall. Here, the Court fails to see why this complaint was raised.
When a person joins a fantasy league that has a cash payout, one of the main goals and incentives for participation in that league is the prospect of financial gain. In the subject league, the members either returned from the previous year or joined as a new member with the understanding that only four out of twelve teams would earn a playoff berth and be eligible to win a cash prize. All twelve teams tacitly accepted these conditions when they paid their entry fees and drafted their teams. The strategies employed by all twelve league members when preparing for and then actually doing the draft focused solely on their own individual evaluation and ranking of players. Each league member made their draft selections based on their own personal belief that owning such a player would help them attain one of the four playoff berths. At no time would the number of playoff eligible teams in the league change an individual’s personal evaluation or ranking of a player where it would alter one’s draft strategy. This is based purely on common sense, basic sociological principles, and the Fantasy Judgment panel of judges’ own experiences with drafting in leagues that either had two, four, six, or eight playoff teams.
That being said, the Court must also comment on the commissioner’s actions outside the scope of whether the decision itself is fair and should be upheld. For a commissioner to make rule changes or alterations in mid-season is not an uncommon occurrence, especially when something has come up that predicates such action. Most times a mid-season change to the rules will be something quantitative that affects the day to day functioning of the league. And most times, if done properly, the commissioner can justify his/her actions with a well thought-out and written explanation to the league. However, when a league is formed and members are recruited, the most basic information about the league is provided (i.e., number of teams, style of league, point scoring system, entry fee, prize money). The number of playoff teams is a part of the basic structure and foundation of the league, and is one of the initial pieces of information that is, or should be, shared with prospective participants. For the commissioner to autonomously change the structure of the league after three weeks of the season has gone by is highly questionable.
Of more concern to the league should be the commissioner’s ability and willingness to make additional changes to the league during the season. This is why a league constitution needs to be in place – to provide checks and balances to the commissioner and ensure fair and equitable decision-making on all fronts of the league.
The Court recommends that the league members collectively request to the commissioner that any future changes to the structure of the league be voted on for the remainder of the season. For next year, it is recommended that the commissioner implement a league constitution with guidelines and provisions in place to handle such changes to the league during mid-season.
In conclusion, the commissioner’s decision to add two playoff teams to the league does not have any detrimental effect on the league or its members. If nothing else, it has added two opportunities for teams to reap financial benefits from the league. While the commissioner’s ability to make this decision needs further inquiry, the decision itself is mundane and should be upheld.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
