NFL losing it's cap?

I read about this a while ago, but it didn’t seem to be a legit thread. Now it’s popping up more often in articles, seemingly going into place in 2008. Is this going to result in what I think it will, basically making it easier for dynasties to occur and becoming more like baseball, which I have little interest in simply because of the lack of parity?

Or “its” cap, even.

The current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA has to be extended by March 3, or else the 2007 season will be uncapped. Gene Upshaw has already said that if the cap disappears, it won’t come back (i.e. the NFLPA will never agree to it again.)

The problem is that there’s been very little movement on an extension, which leaves the free agency market a bit uncertain due to the potential of an uncapped season.

Certainly in a cap-less NFL teams will have to shell out more for their players, but since NFL has revenue sharing I wouldn’t expect that a permanent underclass based strictly on market-size won’t develop like the current situation in baseball.

That isn’t to say that teams with wealthy owners who don’t mind losing money will drive up free agent prices, putting teams with owners who aren’t so free with their checkbooks at a distinct disadvantage. (Sorry Cardinals fans.) I’m not sure if this is an outright parity killer, but I would expect to see a lessening of the extent of the parity. The Patriots kind the lie to the fact that dynastys are impossible in the modern capped NFL, but I would expect to see them become more likely if the NFL loses the cap permanently and no functional equivilent palatable to the player’s union can be found.

Daniel Synder proves that all the money in the world won’t necessarily buy you a Super Bowl ring. But it does help, as Eddie DeBartolo & Jerry Jones showed.