The BCS national Championship game is set with a rematch of Alabama and LSU, but that doesn't mean the upcoming game in New Orleans is without controversy.

The rematch of the two SEC rivals -- LSU won the first game, 9-6 -- has angered college football fans that feel it is a weak conclusion to what has been an otherwise exciting football season.

Some have been upset with the idea of a rematch for weeks, but the bandwagon for a new matchup truly gained steam on Saturday night after Oklahoma State throttled Oklahoma, 44-10.

Oklahoma State's high-powered offense behind Brandon Weeden could have been an interesting contrast to LSU's staunch defense, but instead fans will get a rematch of a low-scoring game that didn't meet pregame expectations of the Game of the Century.

Fans have indicated that they aren't interested in seeing a retread of a particularly sloppy football game against two defensive-oriented teams. If Alabama and LSU didn't meet in the regular season it would be the consensus desired matchup, but many want to see something new in the national championship game.

This year's game's lack of true resolution only amplifies the argument that college football needs a playoff in order to truly determine a national champion.

Many clamor for an eight or 16-team playoff, but even SEC commissioner Mike Slive's proposed Plus-One scenario would help sort out this current mess. No one would have to debate whether Oklahoma State should deserve a chance instead of Alabama because both would have an opportunity to earn a spot in the championship game.

Under that proposed scenario, Oklahoma State would take on Alabama while consensus No. 1 LSU would play Andrew Luck's Stanford Cardinal. It would add resolution, excitement and give some actual meaning to conference championship games.

Big 12 interim commissioner Chuck Neinas highlighted the need for a plus-one model after one of his conference schools was slighted out of an opportunity to win a national championship.

The plus-one model has received consideration before, Neinas said. As a result of this year, I feel that consideration should become more serious as we move forward.

With Neinas' recent endorsement of the model, he joins Slive and ACC commissioner John Swofford as power conference commissioners in favor of some sort of playoff. Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson has also heavily pushed for a playoff system, though he favors a 16-team playoff that would generate three times the amount of money that the BCS currently does.

Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany has been staunchly against any sort of playoff for risk of diminishing interest in the Rose Bowl and that likely won't change anytime soon. The Big 10 and Pac-12 will likely continue to oppose any sort of playoff, but it's clear that the tides are changing in the college football environment.

As more and more situations like this one occur, it generates more and more pressure on college administrators to come up with a football playoff system.

Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel -- a huge proponent of a playoff system -- wrote earlier this year that there a playoff system was gaining steam ahead of the BCS agreement ending in 2014, but that it still would be a surprise to see it happen.

Wetzel has long argued that it makes sense for everyone involved to finally adopt a playoff, especially in financial terms, but that commissioners are too scared to change the status quo.

But perhaps when conference commissioners realize that the SEC has a complete stranglehold over the BCS championship game -- this year guarantees the conference a sixth straight national championship -- that it is necessary to make a change.

Why wouldn't a commissioner like the Big East' John Marinatto support some version of a college playoff? It'd likely mean more money and better opportunities for what is often-times an irrelevant football conference.

Not only is it what the fans desperately want, but it's what makes the most financial and strategic sense for the bulk of athletic conferences.

If Thompson's proposed 16-team playoff really can generate three times the amount of money than the BCS, wouldn't it be fiscally irresponsible to not consider that plan? That proposed plan would award a national champion more than $90 million while the BCS national champion earns $28.4 million.

Why wouldn't every conference want to earn triple the amount of money it currently would get?

It still comes down to a refusal to change the status quo, but it's clear that the pressure is building for change.

This most recent edition of an unwanted national championship game likely won't lead to a playoff next year, but hopefully the outrage over the current set-up will lead to more consideration for a system that is actually desired by someone other than BCS administrators.