I just don't agree with this argument. Lets take the Metros as an example. As it is right now you play everyone in our conference 4 times (16 games). The other 14 games are a split with the other conference playing three teams four times and one team twice depending on how the team finished last season compared to you. You still have 15 times to travel. Travel now: 8 trips to Eastern Conf. teams 7 trips to Wester Conf. teams If you went to a single table with 11 teams you'd still have to travel 15 times. Your schedule then would have two trips to half the stadiums and one trip to the others. So unless a team got unlucky from the East and had to travel twice to SJ, LA and Colorado it would end up being about the same. Sure, it would cost more for some teams, but then wouldnt/couldnt it end up costing less for other teams??? And since all the money comes out of the same account, wouldnt you then be pretty much where we're at now for costs? A little extra expense is worth it to me to have a single table, balanced schedule (balanced in games vs. teams, not home field obviously). The argument that geographic rivalries are sacrificed is a good point, but you'd still have three games vs. that team. One more than other geographic rivalries around the world.
There must be balance within whatever you are using as determining who makes the playoffs. So if you play in conferences, you can't have a situation like suggested above in the East where you play 2 of the conference teams 5 times and the other 2 four times. If you have someone have stinker of a year like Dallas this year, then you are handing the 2 teams that get the extra game against them 3 extra points. I don't know if you can balance the intra conference schedule with an uneven number of teams from the two conferences. Given that, you may be forced to play the 3 games apiece schedule as some have suggested.