I don't remember a thread specifically on this question, but it's something I feel strongly about, so here goes...
Rittenberg's story is here: Big Ten ADs to Discuss More Games. Seems Barry Alvarez is a definite yes vote. Maybe Osborne too, whose main concern is preserving seven home games per year, which is possible as long as their home-and-aways are scheduled properly. Burke at Purdue seems more on the fence, looking at both sides of the argument.
If Osborne and Alvarez are any indication, I wonder if a nine-game schedule will be the concession made to the West to get them to go for an East-West divisional split.
Resolved: The most effective step toward Delany's "competitive fairness” would be to play a nine-game conference schedule. Balance between divisional alignments will come and go as programs wax and wane, but the most inherently unfair situation is when one team in a division is playing three weaklings from the other division while another team is playing its strength. You can mitigate this somewhat by playing four teams from the other division each year instead of only three.
Resolved: With revenue sharing with the away team, six additional Big Ten games are of more (or at least similar) value than twelve FCS games. This is due to the increased average value of the television broadcasts, which make up for the lost ticket sales, especially when the fees paid to the FCS teams are factored in. In addition, an extra Big Ten home game every other year is as much of a boost to the local economy as a meaningless FCS home game every year, because far more people care about it.