If the College Football Playoff isn't broken, why fix it?

During college football's Bowl Championship Series era, the sport's opposition to an expanded, let alone expansive, playoff could be summarized in one colorful quote by then-Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee.

"They will wrench a playoff system out of my cold, dead hands," Gee said in 2007.

We are happy to report that while college football does, indeed, have a playoff, Gee is still very much alive. The 81-year-old retired just this week after a second stint leading West Virginia University.

What is dead and buried, though, is college football's staunch resistance to extending its postseason field. After decades of ignoring complaints and the promise of additional revenue to claim that just two teams was more than enough, plans to move from 12 participants to 16 were underway before last season's inaugural 12-teamer even took place.

A once-static sport now moves at light speed, future implications be damned.

Fire. Ready. Aim.

So maybe the best bit of current news is that college football's two ruling parties -- the SEC and Big Ten -- can't agree on how the new 16-team field would be selected. It has led to a pause on playoff expansion.

Maybe, just maybe, it means no expansion will occur by 2026, as first planned, and college football can let the 12-team model cook a little to accurately assess what changes -- if any -- are even needed.

"We have a 12-team playoff, five conference champions," SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said this week. "That could stay if we can't agree."

Good. After all, what's the rush?

The 2025 season will play out with a 12-team format featuring automatic bids for five conference champions and seven at-large spots. Gone is last year's clunky requirement that the top four seeds could go only to conference champs -- elevating Boise State and Arizona State and unbalancing the field.

That alone was progress built on real-world experience. It should be instructive.

The SEC wants a 16-team model but with, as is currently the case, automatic bids going to the champions in the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and the best of the so-called Group of 6. The rest of the field would be at-large selections.

The Big Ten says it will not back such a proposal until the SEC agrees to play nine conference games (up from its current eight). Instead, it wants a 16-team system that gives four automatic bids apiece to the Big Ten and SEC, two each to the ACC and Big 12, one to the Group of 6 and then three at-large spots.

It's been dubbed the "4-4-2-2-1-3" because college athletic leaders love ridiculous parlances almost as much as they love money.

While the ACC, Big 12 and others have offered opinions -- mostly siding with the SEC -- legislatively, the decision rests with the sport's two big-dog conferences.

Right now, neither side is budging. A compromise might still be made, of course. The supposed deadline to set the 2026 system is Nov. 30. And Sankey actually says he prefers the nine-game SEC schedule, even if his coaches oppose it.

However, the possibility of the status quo standing for a bit longer remains.

What the Big Ten has proposed is a dramatic shift for a sport that has been bombarded with dramatic shifts -- conference realignment, the transfer portal, NIL, revenue sharing, etc.

The league wants to stage multiple "play-in" games on conference championship weekend. The top two teams in the league would meet for the league title (as is currently the case), but the third- and fourth-place teams would play the fifth- and sixth-place teams to determine the other automatic bids.

Extend this out among all the conferences and you have up to a 26-team College Football Playoff (with 22 teams in a play-in situation). This would dramatically change the way the sport works -- devaluing the stakes for nonconference games, for example. And some mediocre teams would essentially get a playoff bid -- in the Big Ten's case, the sixth seed last year was an Iowa team that finished 8-5.

Each conference would have more high-value inventory to sell to broadcast partners, but it's not some enormous windfall. Likewise, four more first-round playoff games would need to find television slots and relevance.

Is anyone sure this is necessary? Do we need 16 at all, let alone with multibids?

In the 12-team format, the first round wasn't particularly competitive -- with a 19.3-point average margin of victory. It's much like the first round of the NFL playoffs, designed mostly to make sure no true contender is left out.

Perhaps last year was an outlier. And maybe future games will be close. Or maybe they'll be even more lopsided. Wouldn't it be prudent to find out?

While there were complaints about the selection committee picking SMU and/or Indiana over Alabama, it wasn't some egregious slight. Arguments will happen no matter how big the field. Besides, the Crimson Tide lost to two 6-6 teams last year. Expansion means a team with a similar résumé can cruise in.

Is that a good thing?

Whatever the decision, it is being made with little to no real-world data -- pro or con. Letting a few 12-team fields play out, providing context and potentially unexpected consequences, sure wouldn't hurt.

You don't have to be Gordon Gee circa 2007 to favor letting this simmer and be studied before leaping toward another round of expansion.