I like this form of scheduling for every league, and it even gets better for the leagues when we see 16 team conferences or if we see a 18 team conference in the future.

The other part of the scheduling that should be mentioned is
don't lock into a situation where each team has to play each other team equally.

Each team probably locks in 3 teams they play annually, a portion of teams they might play bi-annually, possibly some teams they play 2 out of every 3 years or even, some teams in larger leagues may only play another team 1X out of 4 or 6 years(this was suggested by someone in reference to a Big 12/PAC merger or whatever you call it that went to 18/20 teams. In that instance why did Texas or OU want to play Oregon St. or WSU, nor why did the league/networks want to waste slots with games involving Texas/OU with a OSU/WSU/Utah.

The same thing would be the case if a B1G or SEC added 4 teams to get to 18. While certainly the SEC would want to highlight the better games or better regionalized fits. Vandy/Kentucky/MSU/ playing Texas & OU are a waste and whoever Texas & OU bring along from a list of OSU, KS or ISU playing those teams don't provide a lot of value either.

I thought it was a really good concept even if it takes some rule changes. But I know the B1G does not schedule East & West Teams on an equal basis so there is some flexibility already there. The single set of standings would allow for the best teams in the conference playoffs also.