It seems to be the discussion that just won’t go away.

Every year, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) ranking system causes college football fans to be up in arms about some bowl matchup — which team got included instead of another, for example — to fuel the burning campaign to switch to a playoff system.

We’re not going to stand on our soapbox and preach the need for a playoff system — honestly, bowls make college football unique, in our collective opinion — but we will say there are flaws that need to be addressed, especially with this year’s selection.

First, we speak for a majority of those out there when we say we did not want to see an Alabama-LSU rematch in the National Championship game. Both teams, who finished No. 1 and No. 2 in the BCS poll, hail from the SEC West and have already played — LSU won 9-6 in overtime Nov. 5.

It is a fact that there has never been a team that has won the national championship without winning its own conference crown. With that being said, why should Alabama have a shot at the national title when it couldn’t even win its own division, let alone its own conference?

We know that the two best teams should play in the title game, but Oklahoma State could have made a compelling case for jumping Alabama at No. 2 in the polls.

It’s true that Iowa State’s 37-31 double-overtime upset of the then-No. 2 Cowboys on Nov. 18 was a major catalyst in keeping them out of the championship game, but the bottom line is they won the Big 12 and have enough season accolades to be worthy of competing for a national title.

Also, here’s the most jarring and most compelling reason for an OSU-LSU championship game — the Big 12 has been ranked as the toughest conference in college football by the latest Sagarin poll.

So why should Alabama, which didn’t win its conference or its division, get a bid in the title game instead of Oklahoma State, which won the toughest conference in the nation?

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that the Atlantic Coast Conference got two bids (Clemson, Virginia Tech) in the BCS bowls while the Big 12 only got one (Oklahoma State).

Kansas State, which found itself in the Cotton Bowl after being denied a BCS bid, is ranked at No. 8, which is higher than Virginia Tech, which got an at-large bid to the Sugar Bowl, at No. 11.

Kansas State also outranked both Virginia Tech and Michigan — the Hokies’ opponent in the Sugar Bowl — in all considerable categories except for number of away games, which Virginia Tech had with six.

A 2-2 record against ranked opponents and 5-2 record against top 30 teams should have gotten Kansas State a BCS bid, especially since neither Virginia Tech nor Michigan had those particular accolades on their resumes.

It should be said that Kansas State, which has the smallest athletic endowment in the Big 12, likely would not have drawn as many fans to a BCS bowl game as Michigan or Virginia Tech. This was probably the deciding factor for selecting those two instead of Kansas State, which makes sense financially if money is the only thing that matters and blatantly outweighs the quality of the game itself.

Because hey, the quality of the game isn’t that important, right?

So once again, we give another gigantic facepalm to the BCS for getting it wrong. Again.

Maybe next year we won’t have to make these same complaints, but we doubt it.