Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

#8 would sting.  Has that ever happened in the history of mankind?  I guess it happened in Friday Night Lights (in the book at least, can't say either way for the movie)...

Overall I like it, but there are some things that I find odd.  

It seems really strange to me that if two teams are left after any step you revert to step-1, but if three or more are left you instead keep moving through the steps.  

I personally think that in most cases step-5 and step-6 should be switched.  

Looking at last year in the B1G-E:
Ohio State finished 8-1, one game ahead of PSU and MSU.  Imagine instead that Ohio State had lost to Penn State but that Penn State had lost to Iowa and that MSU had lost to Iowa instead of NU such that all three finished 7-2.  

The tiebreakers:

• H2H2H:  Still tied: They are each 1-1 (tOSU beat MSU, MSU beat PSU, PSU beat tOSU).  
• Divisional Record:  Still tied:  They are each 5-1.  
• Record against the next best team(s) in the division, then the next, etc:  Still tied, they each went 4-0 against the rest of the division.  
• Record against all common conference opponents:  Still tied:  Their B1G-W opponents are Iowa (all three), NU (MSU and PSU), UNL (PSU and tOSU), IL (tOSU), and MN (MSU).  The only common opponent is Iowa which, in this scenario beat all three.  
• Best cumulative record of non-divisional opponents:  In this hypothetical, PSU wins.  Ohio State would clearly be last as their B1G-W opponents went 9-18.  PSU and MSU both played IA and NU so the difference is that PSU's other B1G-W opponent was 3-6 UNL while MSU's was 2-7 MN.  That seems like an odd tiebreaker to use because obviously any team contending for the Championship should easily beat either a 2-7 or a 3-6 opponent.  

If #5 and #6 were reversed then tOSU would have been eliminated first and MSU would have won the tie based on H2H win over PSU.  

I guess my argument for switching #5 and #6 is that it matters more who your best opponents were than who your worst opponents were.  

#8 would sting.  Has that ever happened in the history of mankind?  I guess it happened in Friday Night Lights (in the book at least, can't say either way for the movie)...

I think it would be extraordinarily unlikely to get all the way to #8 in the B1G.  You would have to have three teams in the same division and in order to get that far the tie would almost have to be at 8-1 and 1-1 against each other.  I say that because if they each lost another game or two then that would likely trigger other steps unless they all lost to the same opponent.  Then their B1G-W opponents would have to have the exact same records and they would have to have the exact same OOC record.  

I continue to strongly believe that we should NOT step into the tiebreaker scenario if the overall conference record is tied but if the division record is tied. Which means that after the season, Division record should be compared and, in the event of ties, H2H is #1 and Conference record should be the #2 tiebreaker.
This is the only straightforward way to control for schedule differences between divisionmates in a bloated conference. 
I don't care if you have more losses than me over all. If we are in the same division and you have fewer division losses, you're better than me and have earned the championship bid, full stop.

Anyway, the Big11 had BCS rank as a tiebreaker until UNL showed up.

yes, that's all about $$$/Helmet

my memory is bad, but I think the last tie-breaker for the Big 12 now is BCS ranking

Last I looked, their ranking tiebreaker was a convoluted mess in which CFP ranking was decisive but only if the teams in question were separated by more than a set number of spots.  Ie, if the higher ranked team was 15 spots ahead they would get the nod but not if they were immediately ahead of the other team.  

It could be pointed out that making division record paramount will diminish the significance of the regular season (interdivisional games). But the effect is small and in the CCG and CFP era, that ship ("diminished regular season") has already sailed.
It could also be argued that giving the bid to the best division record will, in some years, send a team with a lesser chance at the CFP to the CCG, but to me that's akin to saying we care less about naming a true champion than the sexiest team of 201X.
I continue to strongly believe that we should NOT step into the tiebreaker scenario if the overall conference record is tied but if the division record is tied. Which means that after the season, Division record should be compared and, in the event of ties, H2H is #1 and Conference record should be the #2 tiebreaker.
This is the only straightforward way to control for schedule differences between divisionmates in a bloated conference.
I don't care if you have more losses than me over all. If we are in the same division and you have fewer division losses, you're better than me and have earned the championship bid, full stop.

I get where you are coming from and in some cases I certainly agree, but in others I do not and it would be nearly impossible to devise an objective rule that could differentiate between the two cases.  
A hypothetical example in which I would agree with you:
Suppose that Wisconsin ends up being just a steamroller and destroying everyone in their path this year.  In the B1G-E that would be bad for PSU and M who play Wisconsin and good for MSU and tOSU who do not.  (Note, I'm assuming here that those four are the only contenders for the B1G-E and that IU, UMD, and RU will be also-rans).  
In that case I would agree with you because it is "unfair" for the Nittany Lions and Wolverines to be penalized for playing a tougher schedule than the Buckeyes and Spartans.  
A hypothetical example in which I would disagree with you:
Suppose that the Wolverines, Buckeyes, and Nittany Lions go 1-1 against each other and 6-1 against their other conference foes with each of the three losing in a shocking upset, Michigan to Rutgers, Penn State to Indiana, and Ohio State to Minnesota.  
In that case I would disagree with you because I don't think that the Buckeyes should be rewarded for losing to a crappy team from the other division rather than losing to a crappy team from the same division.  Note, however, that the Buckeyes would win this tie in the current structure anyway because it would go to tiebreaker #2, divisional record in which Ohio State would be 5-1 while Penn State and Michigan were each 4-2.  
Where I would STRONGLY disagree with you:
I think we are moving toward and will eventually arrive at a playoff system in which the P5 Champions get auto-bids.  One thing that I would NOT like about that is that it would render OOC games nothing more than exhibitions.  If we further made cross-divisional games into non-factors in the divisional race then those games would also, effectively, be exhibitions.  In that situation Ohio State could literally lose to Oregon State, TCU, Tulane, Minnesota, Purdue, and Nebraska (six games) and still control their own destiny for the National Championship because winning the other six would get them to the B1GCG and winning that would get them to the (enlarged) CFP.