We ran 10,000 simulated drafts of a 10-team league for each of the 10 styles (football and basketball), using the exact random rule the game uses to decide the order. Then we counted how often each manager landed in each pick slot. If it's fair, every manager should get every pick about 10% of the time.
Fairness comes from symmetry: whoever ends up out (or across the line) each round is an even draw among everyone still in. The recorded video is the permanent record of exactly how your league's order was decided.
| Draft style | Every manager/pick landed at | Random-fit test |
|---|---|---|
| 1-on-1 Duels | 9.25% – 10.83% | ✅ pass (p=0.632) |
| 3 Flys Up | 9.32% – 10.66% | ✅ pass (p=0.268) |
| Dodgeball QB | 9.31% – 10.79% | ✅ pass (p=0.226) |
| The Gauntlet | 9.42% – 10.82% | ✅ pass (p=0.172) |
| 100 Yard Dash | 9.14% – 10.61% | ✅ pass (p=0.363) |
| Buzzer Beater | 9.23% – 11.04% | ✅ pass (p=0.153) |
| Fast Break | 9.36% – 10.7% | ✅ pass (p=0.629) |
| Knockout | 8.89% – 10.7% | ✅ pass (p=0.589) |
| H-O-R-S-E | 9.4% – 10.69% | ✅ pass (p=0.977) |
| Half-Court Shootout | 9.26% – 10.61% | ✅ pass (p=0.925) |
Ideal is 10% for every cell. The "random-fit test" is a chi-square goodness-of-fit check; a p-value above 0.05 means the results are statistically indistinguishable from perfect randomness. All 10 pass.
How often each manager (row) landed in each draft slot (column), across 10,000 drafts. A perfectly fair board is 10% in every square — and it is, give or take normal sampling noise.
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mgr 1 | 10.0 | 10.6 | 10.2 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 10.2 | 9.9 |
| Mgr 2 | 10.3 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 10.2 | 10.5 | 9.9 | 10.0 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.9 |
| Mgr 3 | 9.9 | 10.5 | 9.7 | 10.5 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.8 | 10.2 | 9.9 | 9.4 |
| Mgr 4 | 9.3 | 10.0 | 9.8 | 9.1 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 10.3 | 10.4 |
| Mgr 5 | 10.3 | 9.9 | 10.1 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 10.1 |
| Mgr 6 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 10.3 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 10.3 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 10.4 |
| Mgr 7 | 10.2 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 10.5 | 10.2 | 9.9 | 10.1 | 9.6 | 9.3 |
| Mgr 8 | 10.3 | 9.6 | 9.9 | 10.1 | 10.2 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 10.5 | 9.7 | 10.3 |
| Mgr 9 | 9.8 | 10.3 | 10.6 | 9.4 | 9.8 | 10.2 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 9.8 |
| Mgr 10 | 10.1 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 10.1 | 9.6 | 10.0 | 10.6 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 10.3 |
We ran the same audit for 8-team, 10-team, 12-team, 14-team leagues. Same result: every manager, every pick, an equal shot. It doesn't matter what order you type the names in, or which style you pick.
At every step, the game makes a uniform random draw among the managers still in the running. Because each draw is even across everyone left, no seat, name-entry order, or style tilts the odds. The reproducible audit above uses a mulberry32 pseudo-random generator so anyone can regenerate the exact numbers; the shipped game seeds a fresh generator for every draft.
This is what "provably fair" means here: a published 10,000-draft audit, an even chance at all 10 slots, and a result you can reproduce.
No. Nobody chooses the outcome, and every draft is recorded to a video your whole league watches. That video is the record. A commissioner can't quietly re-run the draft until they get pick one and hide it, because the order everyone saw is the order that stands. Draw it once, share the link, done.
Yes. Every manager has an equal chance at every pick, verified by a published 10,000-draft audit whose chi-square p-values all clear 0.05. That means the results are statistically indistinguishable from perfect randomness.
Two things: the order is set by a uniform random draw among the managers still in at each step, and the whole draft is recorded to a shareable video. The math is published and reproducible, and the video is the tamper-evident record of exactly how your league's order was decided.
No. No one, including the commissioner, can pick the outcome, and every draft is recorded. Because your league watches the same video, there's no way to secretly re-roll and hide a better result.
For pure fairness, yes. Reverse standings rewards last season's results and can trap the same managers in late picks year after year. A random order gives every manager an equal shot at every pick, every season.
