Let me address this first as a stand alone question. Do we want to become like Major League baseball? I don't like the current economic structure for player salaries in the NFL. But there is no doubt in my mind that if the league went capless Snyder, Jones and a few more of the more well heeled owners would move to price small market or less well financed owners, like the Rooneys out of the market for the most talented or marketable players. Competitive balance may not be affected too much initially for the same reason that Snyder can't buy a championship now. He doesn't know enough about the game and thinks he can spend his way past his deficencies. Would having a Tomlinson and an Adrian Peterson on the same team guarantee a championship? They still have to play with just one ball, and which one gets it? The o-line still has to block, etc. But pretty soon you will see that certain teams will always get the national spotlight, (Cowboys, Skins, both NY teams, Chicago, Patriots, maybe Chargers) others will get some air time because of 'tradition' or as a bow to their fan base (Steelers, Packers, Browns, Eagles) the rest end up in Palookaville. I would get real tired of that real fast. Just like I got tired when the only NBA games they broadcasted were the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls or now when MLB thinks the only teams worth caring about are the Red Sox and the Yankees.

But something has to be done about this salary structure. Three modest suggestions.

Rookies. I think the NBA is closer to getting this right. Cap rookie salaries. There is no reason that a rookie should command top dollar when he has not proven he can survive the rigors of the NFL, much less be a dominant player. This would have several immediate benefits. The value of having a high draft choice would be restored. An untested rookie would not break your bank and beyond the modest gradations between a high first rounder, say and a second rounder, the onus would be on the player to prove that they belong and that they can survive physically to enjoy the second contract.

Guarantees. Make them a perk for players that have been in the league for at least three years. Deemphasize signing bonuses that benefit teams that can shell out a lot of up front cash, and also these insulting long term deals that promise riches in the great beyond but owners can unilaterally terminate with little explanation or provocation. I consider this a moral issue given the tremendous physical toll that this game places on the players. Many of whom will have lives that will be shorten in quantity and quality. They should be given at least a decent and guaranteed salary for their efforts.

Franchising. Change the parameters of how this term is used. Increase the number of franchise designations, lets say a dozen. The franchise label does not bind the player to the club, but will allow them to match or exceed offers made in the FA market with only a fraction of the contract subject to the cap. The benefit of such an arrangement would be to allow for a team to keep a core group of players together if they choose for team cohesion, maintaining fan identification, etc. Think of where we would be if we had been able to retain Faneca, Hope, Randle El, Porter, Plax. The team would still have the option to choose whether to place the label on a player, and whether they would want to pay a competitive price. If they renege on either issue then the tag can be revoked. This would allow all teams to make flexible decisions on retaining a higher number of players, Big money teams would retain an advantage of sorts in terms of bidding. Players would keep the freedom of marketing their services, but teams would also have the ability to maintain stability if they so choose.

due to the national popularity of the Steelers, I think they could weather that storm, but I wouldn't want them to try.  Baseball has left a bitter taste in my mouth, with the Pirates unable to compete or even finish above .500 for that matter.  Rick makes some great points, and I think that first and foremost, the have GOT to take care of the issue of rookie salaries.  With such a large chance of a guy flopping with the team that drafted them.  The list is huge, with the likes of Couch, Harrington, Arrington, Courtney Brown, Leaf, Akili Smith, Kijana Carter, Andre Ware, Lawrence Phillips, Mike Williams, and on and on.  If teams can stop throwing away money on untested guys who are barely of legal drinking age, think of the cash they could spend elsewhere.  Great points Rick.

Here's a pretty good article http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:D3jcku2GeGYJ:sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story%3Fid%3D328856 8+nfl+salary+cap+dispute+2010&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8  about the NFL labor situation. As in most pro team sports, there might be a problem in the future because one side (ownership in this case) has discovered it negotiated a less-than-satisfactory deal the last time around.

I'm not too worried about what is going on. An uncapped salary year in 2010 would have little effect on the competitive balance of the league. The vast majority of players will already be under contract for that season at predetermined amounts. An impending stoppage in 2011 might further inhibit the dollars offered to free agents in 2010. Any owner stupid enough to pay exorbitant salaries for one year in an uncapped situation will ultimately have to cut players to get under whatever salary cap system is imposed after that.

As much as the Players Union might threaten that they would never agree to a future hard cap system, I don't really take it seriously. The cap system has been good for both players and owners. Everyone has profited. Competitive balance has been maintained. Players can become free agents fairly early in their careers. How often has Team X decided not to draft Player X because they were reluctant or unable to afford his presumed contract demands? I can't remember any. The best way to build a contending team is still through the draft and the overwhelming majority of rookie salaries are modest to downright cheap. Lawrence Timmons was the 15th pick overall last year and even in Year 5 (2011) his cap hit will be less than $3 million. Obviously the top half-dozen or so draft picks get deals that are out of proportion to team payrolls and other rookie salaries, but that's because owners have allowed it happen. Players like having that in place because high salaries for those few players is an accelerating factor in veteran salary growth. There's already a rookie cap in place which doesn't work that well. A few rookies get way too much, the vast majority who turn into good players are underpaid. There's probably a way to find a middle ground that evens out the disparity.

Players received a significant increase in their share of league revenue in the last deal (from 55 per cent to 60 per cent) but there is still plenty of money to go around and keep everyone happy. I don't see any issues which are cause for a significant change in the way the business is run. There is still plenty of time for a resolution of contentious points, including the most likely scenario of everything being put off until negotiations begin for a new CBA.

There will continue to be a lot of posturing and public statements. That's normal. The players' complaint about the owners deciding to lower their borrowing limits (a sign of collusion they claim) is ridiculous. The owners' complaint about an arbitrator being too player-friendly is ridiculous. These are issues that need to be negotiated for the next contract, not cause for a premature change in the way the business is run, or perhaps even terminating it for a while.

I can't imagine the NFL without a hard salary cap. The players have very little negotiating power. Their careers are short, the demand for games is high and the supply of new players is large. Yet their salaries have grown significantly and they achieve free agency quickly. When you hear owners and general managers complaining about the CBA, it's probably because they realized they gave up more than they needed to give up the last time around. Poor babies.

Success on the football field has no correlation to the amount spent on salaries. It all comes down to who you draft and who you hire as the coach and that won't change.

The pirates have been inept, they have been inept at the gm position, they have been inept in the draft/evaluating talent and they have been inept in signing free agents. Having other teams spend less money would not solve their dysfunctions.

I think the steelers are popular, and I think that with the right coaching staff and the right winning atmosphere, they attract players at a market discount, and they have talent that wants to play in pittsburgh,
There were a couple of articles on aol fanhouse about farrior and townsend taking less money to play in pittsburgh, http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/03/16/james-farrior-is-the-consumate-team-player-takes-less-to-p lay-w/

I think that football teams are increasingly independent of the geographic market. The steelers should be considered bigmarket draws to rival any other teams in terms of a television audience. The problem might be with the Bills or the Jags, teams that have had success, and even then have not experienced surges in popularity.

With the intelligence in the 32 team corporate offices and the brilliance in the league office, the NFL has been the best run organization in the world.  With that said, do you think for one second that the owners would allow players (who have no claim to a piece of the pie other than what they can demand with their performance) to dictate to them how to run their organization?  There are thousands of men out there that didn't make the current cut that would be happy to play while the millionaires try to make more millions.  It would be very nice at least for a season or two to see great players that play for the game (rather than for the money) compete.  Mind you, I would prefer to have the best athletes on the field.  However, this would be great football as well.

Simply put, with no salary cap, there will be a lockout.  Many fans will join in the player's protest, but not enough to diminish the financial margins.  Less ticket sales means less money coming in, but lower salaries (probably league minimum) means less going out.  It might even benefit the league for a short period of time.

Yes, the owners are getting rich.  However, they have earned it.  They are paying players, even at a league minimum, well above what you and I will ever make.  Most of these individuals have college educations, and can eventually earn a significant salary off the field.  The owners are paying them to play a game that they love that I would happily play again for free if I had the chance.  (That and if I got my lazy ass back into shape.)  Yes, I agree that the best players should get the best salaries.  However, with the current cap, it provides a very significant opportunity to provide that.

Ultimately, all of these negotiations get pushed back to the fan.  We end up paying the price.  Do you think ticket prices would have gone up if the salary cap didn't keep going up?  Maybe?  But I would argue that it wouldn't go up as quickly as it has.  Short of a nasty prostitute, can you think of anywhere else that you get entertained for three hours at a price of $159 for an average seat other than concerts and pro sports?  Not to mention what it costs if you want a beer!

Two tickets:  $318
Two Beers:  $22
Two hot dogs:  $16
Parking:  $20
Soda:  $6
Peanuts: $8

Average Price to take your son to a game:  $390

OUCH!

Don't get me wrong.  It's worth every minute of it, but more and more children are missing the opportunity to enjoy what I believe is one of the passtimes that makes this country great.  If we take away the salary cap, I couldn't begin to imagine how ridiculous things would become.

So, I'm not worried about what eliminating the salary cap would do to the Steelers.  I'm worried about what it would do to the game an how it is cherished accross our nation.

Sorry, I'll get off of my soap box now.