Why the Pats, Colts, Chargers Got Burned for Undervaluing the Preseason

The pre-season of the NFL won a large victory yesterday. The month-long dog-and-pony show that fans, players and coaches alike screamed to have abolished stepped up and punched them right in the throat. Clearly there is only so much it was willing to take and it should be commended for teaching the league a lesson: use me wisely, or else...

Week 1 of the NFL showed us a few interesting things about older, more experienced teams which championed the insignificance of the pre-season. Several notable clubs who openly mocked the significance of the preseason correspondingly got stood up when they arrived to the dance. Peyton and the Colts were terrible at home. The Patriots scraped by, while the Chargers manufactured defeat from certain victory. The Browns are due slightly different criticism, but are included for reasons outlined below.

Manning's bum-knee kept him out of the pre-season and the Colts offense what victimized resultantly. They looked although the plays were brand new to them and had a porous line that left the pre-seasonless Peyton drifting the in back field. Tony Dungy runs the pre-season like a corporate team-building retreat instead of a boot camp and they were on the wrong end of a 13-29 thumping from a Bears team who was unquestionably better prepared to win.

The team that still hasn't lost a regular season game since 2006, the New England Patriots also unimpressively squeaked by. Notwithstanding the devastation that followed the season-ending injury to Tom Brady, I can't be the only one who felt they should still have put the hammer down a little more against a K.C. squad who also lost their starting quarterback? The Pats had four 3-and-outs and managed to look ordinary, admittedly due to a combination of pre-season malaise and Brady-related shock.

How about the Chargers and Browns? Not really fair to burn the Chargers for losing to a buzzer-beating TD, but they they deserved to lose after surrendering 388-yards (including 68y with 2:27 remaining) and converting but 4-of-12 third downs. They were sound on the offensive side of the ball with Rivers and LT managing performances akin to the AFC championship standards, which I acknowledge begrudgingly.

The over-hyped Browns were in tough against the Dallas Cowboys, but did nothing to make this game competitive. Derek Anderson was brutal, fumbling twice while completing less than half of his throws (QB rating: 74). Early drops and subsequent disappearance of Braylon Edwards set the stage for their unimpressive 10pt performance. With a few more repetitions under their belt Edwards might have run away with that sure-TD he dropped and changed the course of the game.

The reason for their respective struggles is naturally open for debate. If you're thinking like me, then you feel these teams were overwhelmed mentally and insufficiently prepared physically. We hear endlessly about their being no substitution for the speed and intensity of a regular season game, a soundbite that seems to stress the importance of that experience in games that don't matter. So when Manning, LT and Rivers, Brady, Edwards and half of their respective teammates watch -- rather than play -- the tune-up games designed to get them into the proper rhythm, is it any surprise they bonk out of the gate?

Consider the contrast between younger teams who worked their asses off and turned themselves into winners on week one. Rather than a collection of individuals grinding in an unfamiliar groove and at varying speeds, clubs like Atlanta, Buffalo, Chicago and Baltimore hit the ground running -- most importantly, as a group travelling at the same speed in the same lane. Synchronously and as a unit these 4 teams blasted out of the gate and surprised the entire league.

Atlanta was led by Matt Ryan and Mike Turner -- both new to the organization and with something to prove. These kinds of expectations are exactly that which ensures meticulous planning and familiarization with the on-field tenancies of one another. Likewise, after re-claiming the starting role for this season, Trent Edwards and the Bills looked polished. Defense and special teams were outstanding (two special teams touchdowns vs. Seattle) and the results speak for themselves. Baltimore, another team with low-expectations and a young quarterback proved in much the same way the Bills did that using the pre-season as a spring board for excellence rather than a walk-thru or warm-up pays off immeasurably.

In a week featuring the above contrasts to approach-and-outcome the value of the pre-season has never been more controversial. The err of veteran teams who piously demanded the abolishment of the pre-season is in their complacency. They sacrifice fluency and rhythm for the good of their health, which in a game as violent and brutal as the NFL, is a trade-off that needs to be delicately balanced. Let these examples serve as a reminder that in the game of inches, nothing can be overlooked regardless of it's perceived insignificance.

Global Game, Global Coin: Foreign Investors in English Footy

There is an epidemic in the United Kingdom. It's not black death or skinheads, but foreign ownership of English Football clubs. Before you close this tab... hear me out.

On the heels of rumors out of Toronto that Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (owners and proprietors of all the major sports franchises in Toronto) is searching for a team to buy within the English football realm, I've become vexed by the demand for this particular asset class. You have to consider that painfully rich men are so because they know how to manage their money, hence their investments are typically sound. But is the driving force behind this phenomena purely economical or for sport? What happens to teams that fall under foreign ownership and what has brought about this superficially-peculiar trend?

As it turns out, the answer to why was sowed by the seeds of early English ideals: prosperous business endeavors fostered through free markets and product distribution. Specifically, the English Football Association decided in 1992 to allow capitalism to dictate their operations resulting in the sale of television rights to a satellite service for distribution. Viewed as sell outs by other European nations who initially turned their back on the opportunity, they're now faced with the collateral damage brought about by those decisions: the demand for capital and foreign ownership.

The ownership docket is stocked with grossly wealthy foreigners. In addition to the Canadian interest expressed above, add Dubai International capital to the list of those in search of a franchise. Additionally, more successful parties have already landed several notable franchises, namely: Chelsea (Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich), Liverpool (Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillet), and Manchester United (US tycoon Malcolm Glazer). We can be assured their interest in the game took a back seat to their investment concerns, but how do those with genuine fanatical interest in the beautiful game take to the invasion? For some insight, lets bring this scenario closer to home.

Imagine the riots in Indianapolis if Yang Huiyan purchased the Colts? You couldn't swing a dead cat in and around the Lucas Oil Stadium without hitting a Colts fan seething with outrage. Cries of, “why don't they stick to table tennis!” are echoed loudly, with others screaming, “...all the Chinese know is humping, Communism and dog eating! Leave the NFL alone!” The day the headline brakes every Chinese restaurant in the state of Indiana will be surrounded by angry, blood lusting crowds – a reaction this side of the pond might even deem rational (Ok, maybe just the Americans.)

Or maybe Canada too. What if the Montreal Canadians were purchased by Mukesh Ambani? You could bet your ass the province of Quebec wouldn't lie down quietly. They'd rightly fail to see the merits in allowing a cricket-loving billionaire the rights to control their franchise. And finally we've arrived at the krux of the issue -- clearly the owners money is good, but are their intentions?

Some owners make a habit of menacing with their teams day-to-day affairs: Al Davis and Jerry Jones come to mind (thankfully for Cowboys fans to differing results). Foreign ownership has the potential to put your organization on shaky ground if the person with the controlling interests has no prior knowledge of the sport, something these English teams seemed to overlook. Fortunately however, these wealthy owners know the value of winning. Even those rich enough to afford to lose millions would never tolerate it if things could be changed, which brings us full circle: allowing foreigners to invest and/or purchase franchises serves as a brilliantly orchestrated security blanket for organizations looking to secure future success.

When the new ownership plunks down a sizable chunk of their fortune, they do so with the intention of using the professional sports franchise as a vehicle to grow said fortune. Thus, winning as a model for growth, brand loyalty and positive return on investment becomes paramount to the guys who sign the cheques. Does this win-to-profit ideology suss out?

Yea. Chelsea just finished second in all of Europe, losing to Manchester United. Liverpool won the UEFA Champions League in 2005, won the FA Cup in 2006, and finished as runner-up in the UEFA Final of 2007. This success has ensured spots on the top 10 revenue-producing clubs in the world for Manchester United (4th) and Liverpool (10^th) with Chelsea undoubtedly nipping on their heels. Finally, we've found the reason for the lack of outrage from the English: winning cures all ails.