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

The weird part about all this is if the SEC went east instead of west.  Say, it took NC State and VA Tech instead of Okie St and KU....

A&M, LSU, Ark, Mizz - WEST
OM, MSU, ALA, Aub - DEEP SOUTH
UF, UGA, USCe, Vandy - EAST
Tenn, UK, NCST, VT - APPALACHIA

What would come of Kansas?  It's a big basketball get.  Perhaps too far for the PAC, and too little history with Texas/OU, wherever they went.  They could join the B10 (AAU status), but with what partner?  I'd take UNC over UVA, and KU over UVA, but would the B10 leapfrog the state of Virginia?  

There's a ton of HS talent in VA Beach/Newport News/Norfolk area.  

There just aren't any good ways to quarter a 16 school Big Ten. Even now, the halves of 14 are not balanced by helmet.

For today, I would like to send Purdue East and Michigan West. No more locked crossover for Purdue, but Michigan takes that over so it can play Ohio State yearly.

It might happen.  Stranger things have, that's for sure.

I loved the PSU addition at the time and I still do, but the man in Ann Arbor did not like it at all. I think that led to a lot of the angst.

Add Texas and Oklahoma to the B1G West.

Slide Purdue to the B1G East.

Three helmets in each Division, with the divisions divided along the time zone.

Badda bing, badda boom. Zen-like balance.

Those divisions make natural sense and I like that.  They also should be at least reasonably balanced and I like that.  
The thing I would like about eight team divisions is that even with nine games each team would play:

• Their seven division mates every year
• The eight teams in the other division every fourth year (two per year) so that eight years would elapse between hosting and eight years between travelling to each of the schools in the "Other" division.  

I wouldn't mind having eight years between hosting/visiting the B1G-W newbies (UNL, OU, TX) but I would be sad that long-time conference mates IL, NU, UW, MN, and IA would feel like OOC games based on the infrequency.  

I loved the PSU addition at the time and I still do, but the man in Ann Arbor did not like it at all. I think that led to a lot of the angst.

Three institutions voted no.  The only institution to own up to it for years was IU, however several AD's and prominent coaches were openly against PSU joining due to the fact the negotiations were done very much in secret and only at the president level.  
Delany acknowledged there was "a lot of turmoil" last December over the lack of communication between the Council of Ten and their athletic and faculty representatives.
"I don't think anyone can dispute that. There's been differences of opinion," he said. "Perhaps if we had it to do all over again, we'd use a different process, a process with more consultation. But that's water over the bridge."

Those divisions make natural sense and I like that.  They also should be at least reasonably balanced and I like that.  
The thing I would like about eight team divisions is that even with nine games each team would play:

• Their seven division mates every year
• The eight teams in the other division every fourth year (two per year) so that eight years would elapse between hosting and eight years between travelling to each of the schools in the "Other" division.  

I wouldn't mind having eight years between hosting/visiting the B1G-W newbies (UNL, OU, TX) but I would be sad that long-time conference mates IL, NU, UW, MN, and IA would feel like OOC games based on the infrequency.  

I think this is the sacrifice you make with conferences that are too large.  the seven division mates then form the traditional/regional rivalries that the sport thrives on.  And the network gets the content and only negotiates with 5 conferences.