Did you even read the article? Alvarez who has been riding shotgun on this whole expansion (including discussing it with Osborne) and about 3 paragraphs above he says he'd be shocked it the divisions are based on a straight geographical split.

Option #2: modified North & South split, does more damage to end of year games than needed but this is a good option if B10 still has hopes of adding Notre Dame in the future (in which case OSU & a other new member go to the Plains while ND & Purdue are placed in the Lakes division)....again, permanent rival on same line.

Lakes Division......Plains Division
OSU........................PSU
Michigan................Nebraska
Minnesota.............Iowa
Wisconsin.............Purdue
Michigan State......Indiana
Northwestern........Illinois

Option #1: Zipper Approach (permanent rival on same line)....promotes balance and virtually all rivalries with the exception of WiskyIowa (but you both get to play Nebraska each year now), all of the end-of-year rivalries remain the same except Nebraska-Iowa added and Wisky play Minnesota then

Hayes Division.... Stagg Division

OSU.......................Penn State
Michigan............... Michigan State
Wisconsin............ Nebraska
Minnesota.............Iowa
Illinois....................Northwestern
Indiana..................Purdue

Initially your pdf had me excited because I thought it was leaked options from the B10 office. Based on Maturi's comments about each team giving a little I hope the true decision makers won't expect Penn State to bear all the brunt of the division alignments.

Below are a few alternatives I think should be on your pdf....you can have 2 of the 3 occur(competitive balance\fairness, rivalry preservation, geography), not all three. And sorry Wisconsin & Iowa fans, you two likely stop seeing each other each year.