According to ESPN.com’s Adam Schefter the general feeling from owners  is that an uncapped season in 2010 is inevitable at this point.

Those in attendance at last week’s owners meetings in Boston came away convinced that an uncapped year in 2010 is now inevitable. Just before the season, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said he expected 2010 to be an uncapped year. But now comes the strongest language to date that an uncapped year is coming. When one person was asked what he heard to make him feel that way, he responded: “It was what I didn’t hear. I didn’t hear any real progress (in talks regarding a new collective bargaining agreement). We’re going to go through an uncapped year.”

This would second the opinion of other reporters with direct knowledge of the situation.  Almost every beat reporter that I have interviewed on 4th Down (only on WCWPSports.com!) has said that an uncapped year is likely.

Obviously an uncapped year is a game changer.  However, the lack of a salary cap isn’t the only thing that would change.

An uncapped year would change the sport as fans know it. Players who became unrestricted free agents after four years now would have to play six years before becoming unrestricted free agents. Playoff teams would be allowed to sign free agents only as replacements if they lost one. Teams would get two tags instead of one. And each team would be given more franchise tags.

Obviously an uncapped year would feel like doomsday.  No one wants football to become baseball.  However, there’s a misconception about who the uncapped year would benefit.  Seemingly it would benefit the rich owners and the players, however that’s an incorrect assumption.

• The change of the service time, from four to six years, to be eligible for unrestricted agency would severely dampen the earning potential of many players in the off-season.  For example two years ago; Jacob Bell, Travis LaBoy and Antwan Odom all left the Titans.  They signed, to various teams, for a collective $87.5 Million, with $32 Million guaranteed.  With the six year service time requirement none of them would have been unrestricted free agents.  That’s two more years that a player has to subject their body to the wear and tear of the NFL, and hopefully avoid serious injury, before they can sign a mega deal.   Antwan Odom just tore his Achilles tendon and is done for the year, good thing he got a chance to cash in first.
• Teams currently have one franchise tag to use to restrict player movement.  In the event of an uncapped year teams would have one franchise tag and two transition tags.  Teams with two, or three, stars entertaining free agency wouldn’t have to choose which one to keep.
• To keep balance between the haves and the have-nots playoff teams would have a limit as to how many free agents they could sign.   According to Pat Kirwan “if the league gets to the point of an uncapped year, people are afraid that deep-pocket owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder will come in and buy a championship. If the aggressive owners already have playoff teams, there will be restrictions on how much money they can spend. The formula may slide with the number of players they lose in free agency, but the plan is designed to not let teams buy a championship. The truth is, the first two triggers aren’t going to leave too many players available to acquire anyway.*”

The players don’t benefit at all.  Players have to play longer to reach free agency, are subject to the dreaded “franchise tag” more then ever, and if the big spending teams are in the playoffs what teams are left to create a bidding war?  Imagine if Mark Texeria was a free agent but the Yankees and Red Sox couldn’t bid on him.  Think he still gets $100 million?

The current salary cap also creates a salary floor.  Use the MLB again as an example.  The Marlins only spend $37 million on payroll.  There’s no set floor saying they must spend at least $X amount.  In the NFL teams, right now, can spend at much as $128 million but must spend at least $112 million.  With blackouts at an all time high why would a team hemorrhaging money like the Bucs (who was just outdrawn in attendance by USF) spend anywhere close to a $112 million?

Of course the counter argument to all this is “well what if the Redskins, Cowboys or other big market teams don’t make the playoffs?”  True, they won’t have NFL imposed restrictions on free agent moves but; the talent pool would be already diluted and the Skins have tried to throw around money for years…has it worked yet?

If anything the lack of a salary cap in 2010 would present a rare one of a kind opportunity for owners to shed salary.

Teams would be able to dump bloated contracts they don’t want without suffering the regular salary-cap ramifications.  One such candidate could be Oakland quarterback JaMarcus Russell, who is scheduled to count $15 million against the cap for 2010, only $3 million of which is guaranteed. So if the Raiders wanted to pay the $3 million to Russell and let him go, they wouldn’t have to pay his base salary or take the severe cap hit. It’s a similar story in Tennessee with quarterback Vince Young, who has a $4.25 million roster bonus due March 10 to go along with a salary of $2.8 million. If the Titans decided to release him, they’d clear out over $7 million worth of payments.

In turn the wealthy owners would be forced to sign second class free agents to top tier deals to attempt to make their team better. In the long run that’s disastrous, see Knicks, New York during the Isiah Thomas Era.

So the truth is no one benefits from an uncapped year.  Players won’t hit free agency therefore rich owners won’t have anyway to spend on.  Bad teams, in small markets, will spend less money therefore the fans lose out.  Well run teams that are consistently the class of the league (Giants, Pats and Steelers) will be restricted by the “Final 8 Rule” in terms of free agency.  Even though the Giants managed their team correctly in this scenario they never could have signed Michael Boley and Chris Canty.  In essence they are being punished for their own success.

The NFL is suppose to reward teams from proper management not punish them.  An uncapped 2010 does just that and screws everyone else in the process.

*This is the closest I could find as to concrete rules regarding the “Final 8 Clause”

Teams

For teams, there is one major downside, the Final Eight Plan, that affects only the teams that reach the Divisional Round (the second week) of the playoffs.

Teams that lose in the second week will be limited in their ability to sign unrestricted free agents. They’ll be able to sign one UFA to a large contract (more than about $5 million per year), and as many players as they want to small contracts.

Teams that reach the Conference Championships, however, get both presents and coal in their stockings. Win or lose, by being one of the final four teams, they will be subject to three major limitations:

• They can resign their own players with no additional restrictions beyond those placed on any other team.
• Beyond that, however, they can only sign one free agent for each one they lose, and the departing free agent’s new contract sets a limit on the size of the new player’s contract.
• The teams can trade for players given franchise and/or restricted free agent tenders, but they cannot circumvent the above rule by trading for a player they couldn’t sign as a free agent.
• The teams are free to sign players that clear waivers, but not all players go through the waiver process before becoming UFAs.

Sources And Thanks:

- Adam Schefter’s ESPN Insider Blog.

- NFL Salary Cap Rules on Wikipedia

- Pat Kirwan, NFL.com

- Samer Ismail of Bleacher Report.com for providing the “Final 8″ information.