If the NFL adds a 17th game and makes it a rivalry game (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

The NFL's current schedule set up is soon going to finish it's 4 year rotation for the 2nd time, after which the NFL is set to reevaluate it. With discussion already out there of adding a 17th game, let's say hypothetically that they add the game and decide it will be a rivalry game that recurs every year (regardless of whether the teams would have played that year because of the rest of the schedule or not).Lets assume the rivalry cannot be with a team already in their division. While it's possible they would restrict rivalry games to being out of conference, let's not make that a requirement here. So the game can be any team in either conference, so long as they aren't in the same division. No division realignment will take place.What do you think the matchups should be?While I said they don't have to be out of conference, I believe all the matchups I came up with were out of conference. I like most of them, though a few (Pats-Packers, Bengals-Falcons, and Bills-Vikings) were more about pairing up the teams who were left.Bills - VikingsDolphins - Bucs Pats - PackersJets - Giants ... The Grapple in the Big AppleRavens - RedskinsBengals - FalconsBrowns - Lions Steelers - Eagles ... The Battle of PennsylvaniaTexans - Cowboys ... Lone Star ShowdownColts - Bears Jaguars - Panthers Titans - SaintsBroncos - SeahawksChiefs - RamsRaiders - 49ers ... the Battle across the BayChargers - CardinalsEdit to pair Detroit and Cleveland for the obvious Michigan - OSU rivalry.

I know you were trying to keep everything out of conference, but it'd make more sense IMO to pair Denver with New England and Green Bay with Seattle. GB/Seattle would have been much greater 3 years ago, when Green Bay was starting Seattle's former RB, while Seattle was starting GB's former backup QB and was led by GB's superbowl-winning coach, back in the "We'll take the ball... and we're going to score!" days... but Seattle's such a bland team, there's really no better option to pair them with outside of Pittsburgh (who is already taken). The Holmgren/Green/Hasselbeck/"We're going to score" link will have to suffice.As for Denver/New England... it practically *WAS* a rivalry game for a long time- Between 1995 and 2006, Denver and New England played each other every year except for 2004. Of course, they made up for it by playing New England twice in 2005. Lots of history between the two teams- you have Elway owning New England throughout his entire career, Shannon Sharpe calling the national guard, Bill Belichick taking an intentional safety, Champ Bailey running an INT back 100+ yards and NOT scoring, Denver ending Brady's perfect postseason streak, etc. As a Broncos fan, I'd love to see that come back and become a yearly thing.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

that is actually a really good idea to have all of these games played either on neutral sites or overseas...

What if they did this:

Added an extra bye week after week 17, then had these games spread out over week 18 (like from thursday to monday), then had one week off before the playoffs start...

Then they could schedule one game in like London, Tokyo, Toronto, Mexico City, and a few other international sites...

Plus have a few games at neutral sites (Dallas vs. Houston somewhere else in Texas; San Francisco vs. Oakland somewhere nearby, but not belonging to either team

They could also have a game in Vegas and a few other places that don't have NFL teams, especially places with large college stadiums (Alabama, Iowa, maybe even someplace like Boise St.'s stadium or U of Wyoming every once in a while)

Then you get away from having teams with 9 home games... and you get to test new markets and gauge overseas interest...

When they talk about expanding to 17 games, I think something like this is ultimately what they have in mind. Hit the European/Asian markets, play some games in neutral sites, test out waters for possible relocations, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple games each year played in LA if this happens.Vegas, I'm not sure that the NFL would want to go there, given their aversion to all things gambling. But I could definately see them playing games in Mexico City, Canada (more than Toronto), Europe, Tokoyo and China.

 

[larry_boy_44]

let's look at it as "how do we get the biggest stadiums in the world"... lol

I'm not including state colleges who have only one team nearby or only AFC or NFC teams in state (Michigan, Ohio State, LSU, etc.)

Beaver Stadium (Penn State) - 107,282 (Pittsburgh vs. Philly? Where is Penn State in relation to those two cities?)

Estadio Azteca (Mexico City, Mexico) - 105,000 (soccer stadium)

Melbourne Cricket Ground (Melbourne, Australia) - 100,000 (cricket, rugby, soccer)

Camp Nou (Barcelona, Spain) - 98,772 (soccer)

Estadio Do Maracana (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) - 96,000 (soccer)

Darrell K. Roayl-Texas Memorial Stadium (Austin, Texas) - 94,113

Bryant-Denny Stadium (Tuscaloosa, Alabama) - 92,138

LA Coliseum (LA) - 92,000

Rose Bowl (Pasadena) - 91,136

Beijing National Stadium (Beijing, China) - 91,000 (olympics)

Wembley Stadium (London, England) - 90,000 (soccer)

Stadio Guiseppe Meazza (Milan, Italy) - 85,700 (soccer)

ANZ Stadium (Sydney, Australia) - 83,500 (rugby, cricket, australian rules football)

Croke Park (Dublin, Ireland) - 82,750 (socer, hurling, Gaelic football, soccer)

Stadio Olimpico (Rome, Italy) - 82,656 (soccer)

Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium (Norman, Oklahoma) - 82,112

Signal Iduna Park (Dortmund, Germany) - 81,264 (soccer)

and there's probably 80 more stadiums with more than 70,000 seats all over the world (and I skipped a few because they were in places like North Korea or Iran)