Mase, how would the scheduling formula work with 18 games? I don't think it would. Right now, the NFL schedule is completely balanced.

-- Brian (via Orange and Blue 760 text line)

There is the possibility of adding another two games in intra-conference play based on the standings. For example, the Broncos face the third-place teams from last year's standings in the AFC East (Buffalo) and the AFC North (Cleveland), while also taking on the entire AFC South, per the scheduling rotation. Based on this year's schedule an extra two games could come from the AFC East and AFC North. In 2020, the additional pair of games would come from the AFC North and AFC South, since the Broncos and the AFC West face the entire AFC East.

Here's how it would work with the AFC West with this year's scenario:

Kansas City: In addition to facing the first-place teams from the AFC East (New England) and AFC North (Baltimore), the Chiefs would face the second-place team in the AFC East (Miami) and the third-place team in the AFC North (Cleveland).

L.A. Chargers: In addition to games against the two second-place teams from the AFC East and North (Miami and Pittsburgh), the Chargers would face the first-place team in the AFC East (New England) and the fourth-place team in the AFC North (Cincinnati).

Denver: In addition to their games against third-place finishers Buffalo and Cleveland, the Broncos would play the fourth-place team in the AFC East (N.Y. Jets) and the first-place team in the AFC North (Baltimore).

Oakland: In addition to their contests with fourth-place teams (N.Y. Jets and Cincinnati), the Raiders would play the second-place team in the AFC North (Pittsburgh) and the third-place team in the AFC East (Buffalo).

Thus, in games against the AFC North and AFC East, the Chiefs would play teams with an average division placement the previous year of 1.75 (two first-place teams, a second-place team and a third-place team). The average placement of foes for the second-place Chargers would be 2.25. For the third-place Broncos, it would be 2.75, and then 3.25 for the last-place Raiders.

Playing teams from different spots in other divisions in the conference based on the previous year's standings is a concept that was used from 1978 through 2001. Until the expansion to 30 teams in 1995, you might recall how the rotation called for the two fifth-place teams in each conference to play each other in a home-and-home series. (There were just two fifth-place teams in each conference because one division in the AFC and NFC had four teams until the arrivals of Carolina and Jacksonville.) This is why the Broncos played the Patriots twice in the 1991 season.

The idea I personally favor is for two extra games to be permanently set against teams from other divisions (or the opposite conference). This would allow for the creation of geographic rivalries that do not exist. This would allow the Los Angeles and New York clubs to meet annually. It would ensure annual games among the three teams in Florida. Some pairings would also have historic basis. For example, I have the Cowboys partnered with Houston (obvious, because of geography) and Green Bay (a history of classic, high-leverage duels going back to their meetings in the 1966 and 1967 NFL Championship Games).