Since it is finally offseason for the Houston Texans, it is tie to get down to the business that is foottball. After the Super Bowl finishes and the players finish their hula dances, NFL owners and GMs (and some coaches) will get together to try once again to get a new collective bargaining agreement. I know it sounds boring, but if nothing happens this year, then there is no salary cap next year. This would be bad for football, as I would thank many of you would agree. The main controversy is over how much money each to shares in the NFL. Small market teams want the large market teams to share more money, so that they can get more money. They have a legitimate case, because teams like the Jaguars (it's offseason and they are out of the playoffs, don't hate them too much) do not have a large market base to work from in Jacksonville. However teams like Houston, Dallas and New England have extremely large market bases. This past season, a team like Houston (2-14) collectively made more than Jacksonville (12-4) simpoly because Houston is a bigger market than Jacksonville. The Jaguars annually have problems selling out games, and therefore people in Jacksonville don't watch the home games because of blackouts. The main problem that teams like Jacksonville bring up is that they may actually lose money in a season. If teams start losing money, the NFL might have a situation like baseball had a couple seasons ago when teams like the Minnesota Twins were almost cut out of the league. I don't think many people want to start losing teams. So after reading that I pose this question, should large market teams have to give a larger portion of their revenue to the NFL to share with smaller market teams? Or should the NFl allow economics to freely happen, where an equiliberium will be found after a certain amount of teams leave the league? Is it all about location, location, location and the business side of football, or allowing the players to play? Also, another piece of the agreement that I would love to see but I know I will not be able to is something about rookie contracts. The first round contracts are outrageous for unknown potential. There are two choices here. 1) The NFL could set a mandatory payment, whereas in the first round, rookies recieved a certain amount of money, known by the NFL for each draft pick. For example, every year, the first pick recieved $35 million and a $5 million signing bonus, the second pick got $33 million and a $4 million bonus. This would help prevent holdouts in the various training camps and allow teams to play football and not hardball with player's agents. 2) The contracts are changed to be similar to Maurice Clarett's and Ricky Williams rookie contracts. If you are not familiar with them, they are production based contracts. A rookie in the first round may only make $5 million base salary, but it could escalate to $30 million if he produces on the field. The main benefit of this is it protects teams from players who do not perform on the field, such as Bennie Joppru and Kellen Winslow II. It also allows for better control of the salary cap in the long run and makes the NFL more competitive (leaguewide, any team could have a larger turnover each year, becuase teams that better control the cap can do better in FA). While I also think production based contracts would be nice for Free Agents as well, I think it should start with rookies. What are your thoughts (even if it will never happen)?