College football's season-long Division I FBS playoff is winding down, and it's proving to be one of the most exciting and controversial years in recent memory.

You'll hear people argue that college football needs a playoff with X number of teams so that it all gets settled on the field. Frankly, no one can argue that it wouldn't be an awesome few weeks of football.

While many would love to see this March Madness-like playoff in football, there's something great about every regular season game playing such a pivotal role in the national championship race. A season-ending playoff would devalue the best regular season of any college or professional sport.

No matter how you, I or the NCAA feel about it (since the 11 Division I FBS conferences, Notre Dame and bowl representatives - not the NCAA - run the BCS system), the current procedure is how it is going to be for the time being. In most years since the implementation of the BCS, the action on the field settles itself out where the voters and computers have little impact on determining the national champion.

However, this college football season is proving to be a tricky year. The voters and computers are, in fact, playing a major role in determining the Big 12 South Champion because of the three-way tie between Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech. With Oklahoma getting the nod because of its higher BCS ranking, the Sooners are in position to land a spot in the BCS National Championship game if they can defeat Missouri next week in the Big 12 Championship game.

Unquestionably, Oklahoma is a deserving team, especially considering its performances over the last two weeks where it defeated Texas Tech by 44 points and then rival Oklahoma State by 20 on the road.

Based on the way Oklahoma leap-frogged Texas in the BCS standings, many voters are inferring that Oklahoma's impressive recent performances are more important than the head-to-head matchup against Texas. Additionally, the computer rankings that are used in the BCS rankings favor Oklahoma. You can almost hear the cries from Austin, considering the Longhorns defeated Oklahoma, 45-35, on a neutral field in Dallas in October.

This Big 12 South situation demonstrates the problem with the current voter and computer-dependent system, which is sometimes an inconsistent measurement. Is it more important to be playing well at the end of the season or the head-to-head matchup? Most rational people would think a head-to-head meeting is the best way to settle a difference (assuming you take Texas Tech out of the equation as the result of its ugly loss to Oklahoma and its shaky come-from-behind win at home versus Baylor).

However, this head-to-head model wasn't applied when settling the Big 12 South, proof that some situations are examined in a different, inconsistent approach based on the given circumstances.

Anyone can come up with a tiebreak procedure that favors his or her team of choice. Even Texas Tech Coach Mike Leach proposed an alternative tiebreaking method which would use each team's academic progress and graduation rates. Conveniently, Leach's squad has the highest APR of the three.

Unquestionably, the situation in the Big 12 South demonstrates that the current system is far from perfect. At times, it is frustrating and unfair to the teams and fans. This situation is another reason why a college football playoff would be preferable, just as Division I FCS, Division II and Division III have implemented.

But we have to live with the system that we currently have, which provides the most exciting and compelling regular season in any sport. My request is voters realize their irregularities and try to evaluate teams with the same consistent standards each time they have to make a decision.