[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yes. But what we saw decades ago was even worse. Because owners could do whatever they wanted, some chose to be super cheap, even if it meant losing. Those who were truly interested in winning built impregnable dynasties. So there was not much competitive balance, whether one drafted well or not. On Sept. 1 of each year you knew who was going to win and who was going to lose, more or less. Teams rarely went worst to first or the other way around as they do now. As much as football was great even then, it was more boring than the relatively wide open cap era.

It also was, arguably, an assault on the democratic free market. If I am a plumbing assistant, I can sell my services to whatever plumbing company will pay me the most. But without free agency, players have no opportunity to sell their services to the highest bidder. They are shut out from finding a market-based wage.

The current system has its flaws, but its worked incredibly well. Even if the NFL wins this suit, I hope theyre smart enough to avoid going back to those dark days. Free agency has to stay. Now, i'd be fine if teams could slap a franchise tag on a player indefinitely, so long as they continued to pay the player the average of the top 5 players at that position plus 10% each year.