NFL uncapped -- Good or bad in your eyes?

Bad for the laegue, good for the Skins. I'm against it though, I want Super Bowl rings the hard way. Parity is what makes the NFL great and baseball suck right now.

Well, I know Jerry Jones has said he's opting out -- wouldn't be surprised if Snyder did too. They do have some gripes, they're sending their money to small market teams, etc.

Definitely be interesting to see how it plays out.

Baseball doesn't suck if you like the Yankees or the Redsox!!!!!!

As a Redskin fan, i love it we have a owner that would buy everything and we would win at least 10 superbowls, as a NFL fan, no the salary cap must stay to ensure equality among all teams big & small market (but allow me to dream for a minute owner who loves to spend money on players, at least 10 SB)

Baseball doesn't suck if you like the Yankees or the Redsox!!!!!!


Obv. But either way, Baseball has become a circus. You can't hear the words "Major League Baseball" without hearing "steriods" "Clemens" or "Bonds" in the same sentence anymore. It's sickening. I mean, it's not like I really like the game that much in the first place. I also think it's insulting that it's STILL "Americas Favorite Pastime" even though we all know damn good and well it's the NFL and not the MLB.

I say, take down the MLB and add 10 more teams to the NFL. lol

yes it does.

On one hand...it would be great to see guys stick with a team over the course of a career, creating teams with identities and players a person can identify as being "true Redskins." On the other hand, consistent competition would literally go out the window league-wide.

Well, I know Jerry Jones has said he's opting out -- wouldn't be surprised if Snyder did too. They do have some gripes, they're sending their money to small market teams, etc.

Definitely be interesting to see how it plays out.

I guess ultimately the question is should the owners consider themselves owners of their own companies competing against each other? Or should they consider themselves business partners working together for the NFL to compete with outside competitors.

By working together they've created tremendous value for each of their teams. According to Forbes, the Vikings were the least valuable team in the NFL in 2005. yet they were more valuable than the Knicks (the most valuable NBA team in 2005). The Detroit Pistons and Detroit Red Wings (for all their history and NBA titles and Stanley Cups) together are nowhere near as valuable as the Detroit Lions (with nothing). And the more valuable the smaller market teams are, it would seem logical that it only improves the value of the larger market teams.

On the other hand, because of salary caps you could make the argument that-while there is parity-the quality of the sport has declined. Instead of allowing players to develop and learn you're forced to throw people out there that aren't ready and are constantly turning rosters over.

I think what's important, more so than a salary cap, is that a salary floor is in place. You have to have money (a lot of it) to be an NFL owner so these guys aren't poor but it seems like some (Bidwill) don't invest as much as they could into their teams. In my opinion, if you want to be part of this exclusive club you need to invest more than just the initial capital to buy the team.

as a skins fan, i'd love it. for at least a year or two. danny boy could finally buy that lombardi he's had his eye on. but it would send the game as a whole on a downward spiral. so, ultimately, no good.

i hate seeing my skins struggle year after year after year. but i wouldn't take our competitiveness at the expense of the competitiveness of the league as a whole. that would just cheapen any wins that we may get. i'd much rather see ol danny jus get his act together and BUILD a team from the ground up which he SEEMS to be attempting to do now.

Well, I'm definitely in the minority on this one. I hate parity and crave David versus Goliath matchups. Go Washington Uncaps!