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

Thanks, B1G, for killing the regionality of college football.

I like your idea but with the following changes. 

Division ideas:
West:  USC, UCLA, UO, UWarsh, ILL, NW
Central:  Minn, UWmad, Iowa, Neb, UM, MSU
East:  OSU, PSU, MD, RU, IU, Purdue 

Like when the B12 added West Virginia?

We've had wide-ranging conferences before, but they'd been G5, so it didn't matter.  Adding WV was the same thing, as if they were desirable, they'd have been in the ACC.  
The B1G went across the country to poach a blueblood, starting all of this with that domino.  

Fearless,
If you keep static divisions, you are only getting one crossover a year.  The East and West divisions (or whatever you use) are effectively 2 separate conferences connected by a CCG.  We would have out of conference opponents we would casually play more than conference schools.

I hate this expansion, because to me all the options are bad now.  I haven't seen a lot about option 2 listed, but think its a really option.  Our choices:

1.  We keep no divisions.  This was my prefence since we added a CCG and was the silver lining of the USC/UCLA additions.  With 18 teams though this means we play 9 other teams and miss 8.  The schedules are way too imbalanced to only choose 2 teams.

2.  We could try for unofficial conference semi-finals.  Keep no divisions and move rivalry week up a week again.  On Thanksgiving weekend you have a flex day where the conference announces opponents a week ahead of time.  The top 4 would be matched up together for semifinals while the rest would be scheduled to balance home schedules over the years.  The winners of the top 4 would go on to the CCG.

There is a lot I don't like one this, but given alternatives, could see at least explored.  Alternatively could have 4 small divisions or 3 divisions and a wildcard with this approach.

3.  Two permanent 9 team divisions.  I hate this one the most personally as I want to play the traditional Big Ten teams home and home more than once in two decades.

I guess I do understand that philosophy and it is really just a tad different from mine (which oddly leads to completely different prefences).  

From my perspective though, I want to be playing traditional opponents as much as possible.  If we get a schedule where half them are on the other side, it will feel more like we left the Big Ten more than the Big Ten expanded (granted the confernce is becoming more an alliance than a conference).  I get some of that is inevitable at this point, but I was very happy to be done with east and west and don't want to go back to an even larger form of it.  

You want divisions?  Here you go

Division A - USC, Neb, NW, MSU
Division B - UCLA, Iowa, ILL, Mich
Division C - Wash, Minn, Ind, Ohio ST, Rut
Division D - Ore, Wisc, Pur, PSU, MD

Fixed crossover groups
Group 1. USC, UCLA, Wash, Ore
Group 2. Neb, Minn, Wisc, Iowa
Group 3:  ILL, NW, Pur, Ind
Group 4.  MSU, Mich, Ohio St
Group 5:  MD, Rut, PSU

Division A & B teams - 3 games against Division, 3 games against fixed crossovers,  3 games against other teams  rotated

Division C&D teams - 4 games against Division, 2 or 3 games against fixed crossover,  2 or 3 games against other teams rotated.