I think the issue with the NFL is that the teams with the worst records get the easiest schedule the following season. Miami's schedule this year was a joke--they played Arizona, San Diego, Houston, Baltimore, Denver, Seattle, Oakland, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Kansas City. Only two of those teams had winning records in 2007. No wonder they made the playoffs. A few smart moves by Detroit (which apparently requires at least some competence) and they have a chance next year. If the Packers played that non-divisional schedule, they would have been a playoff team this year. Still, I agree with others here that a salary cap isn't necessarily the best or most fair option. What do you set the salary cap at? What would the minimum be? What happens to the extra revenue for teams like the Yankees? Without major revenue sharing, you can't just force the lower teams to spend $60 million or so per year--and what if they are spending millions on player development and the minor leagues that doesn't go into the payroll? As for the Yankees, if you hold them at $150 million or so, do the owners just get to pocket the extra money or do you force them to put significantly more back into the pot? I don't have all the answers, but I don't think a salary cap could be achieved without a long strike. This could possibly work out well if the fans feel like progress was made (like in the NHL), but if it backfires, baseball could get knocked down to the same level as hockey. I fully support Mark A. for setting this as a goal, but I would be fine with the following concessions: 1) Increased revenue sharing with the criteria based on net income and not payroll 2) Get foreign players in the draft