As a person who was at one time a staunch supporter of a Division I-A football playoff, I am surprising myself by submitting this as a ringing endorsement of the postseason bowl game system.

Of course, the current system is not perfect, as several worthy teams were not invited to postseason bowl games this year. While everyone in our profession and those who follow college athletics closely debate the accuracy of the Bowl Championship Series system and the number of bowl games played, I would like to comment on the subject in a different manner.

Numerous people feel that the bowl system is "watered down" because too many "small-time," meaningless bowl games exist. Try telling that to Boston College, Marshall, Minnesota, Texas Tech, UNLV, Virginia or any other team that finished with a winning record but would not have been considered for a 16-team playoff. Trust me, there is no such thing as a "small-time," meaningless bowl game. Those games, whether played in December or January, are extremely important to their respective student-athletes, coaches, alumni, fans and athletics departments.

For those who say that many of the bowl games are insignificant, I submit that there is no better way for a student-athlete to end a successful season. Bowl games increase national exposure, help in recruiting, provide a solid foundation for the next football season and send the senior student-athletes out with something they will remember forever. How can it get any better than that?

I am in full support of the bowl system, but not because of any of the main arguments of other playoff opponents. Let's be honest, the argument that a playoff would extend the season and place a "heavy burden" on football student-athletes is downright silly. The season already is extended for the 50 teams that were selected to participate in bowl games. Teams that are selected for bowl games practice and participate in conditioning activities well through the month of December, with 16 teams playing their bowl games in January. Regardless of the sport, today's Division I student-athlete practices, conditions and/or competes year-round, thus, the "overworked student-athlete" argument is simply not a good one in my opinion.

Also, has anyone who supports the overworked student-athlete argument ever heard of basketball, a sport that requires its student-athletes to practice and compete during the entire academic year with conference tournaments and the NCAA 64-team "playoff" at the end of the season? Still others suggest that Division I conference offices want to keep Division I football under their jurisdiction rather than allowing the NCAA to control the postseason. This may be true, but it is not a reason to totally dismantle the current bowl system. And lastly, an additional argument is that the current BCS bowl system is flawed and controversial. That may be true as well; however, if you think the BCS is controversial, try pulling a committee together to select eight to 16 Division I-A football teams to compete in a playoff.

I have not seen any research based on the current bowl system compared to a playoff. My instincts tell me that because of the controversy surrounding the BCS and other polls, most people may prefer a Division I playoff. But the current bowl system allows 50 teams to compete in the postseason. Unless some of the bowl games were incorporated into a proposed playoff structure, a playoff would only allow eight to 16 teams to compete in the postseason, thus eliminating at least 34 to 42 worthy postseason-eligible teams. Any changes should stress inclusion rather than exclusion, where as many teams as possible are invited to participate.

Even though proponents of a playoff will continue to argue against the current bowl system, I have witnessed first-hand the importance of a football program ending its season by competing in a bowl game. Only a few weeks ago, our football team was 4-5 with our final two games looming versus nationally ranked SEC teams. Our football student-athletes, who have competed in bowl games in each of the past two years, probably began discussing how different it would be to spend the entire holiday season at home. As the phrase, "The only good thing about this year's football season is that it's basketball season," began to creep onto the campus, the football team rose to the occasion and was subsequently invited to a bowl game. My bowl game endorsement is based on the thrill of seeing young student-athletes accomplish the "impossible" and be rewarded for their efforts, nothing more.

Having been an athletics administrator at the University of Michigan, where New Year's Day bowl games are the norm rather than the exception, I gained a new appreciation for the coveted bowl game invitation and, gulp, realized that there may be some things more important than winning the national championship each year.

Don't get me wrong; we have a very successful football program at Arkansas as well. But to me and many other people associated with Arkansas, this bowl game is special -- special because more than anyone, the student-athletes reap the benefits of the work they have put into this system since the first day they set foot on campus. Like the football student-athletes at Boston College, Marshall, Minnesota, Texas Tech, UNLV and Virginia, this bowl game is for them. And isn't that what this system should be all about?

Derrick Gragg is an associate athletics director at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.