Dan Kleiman's letter about Penn State's bowl match up is the same view as most students on campus ("BCS gives PSU shaft with bowl selection," Dec. 6). I agree that, as the No. 3 team in the country, we deserve to play a higher-ranked opponent than Florida State. However, people are blaming this match-up on the wrong reason.

To all of you who think the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is to blame, keep in mind that the sole purpose of the BCS is to pit the top two teams against each other in the national championship game. This year it worked perfectly. If the BCS did not exist, Penn State would be playing USC in the Rose Bowl as winners of the Big Ten and Pac 10, respectively, just as that bowl had been setup for many years. What happens if the Pac 10 champion turned out to be 17th-ranked UCLA?

Then we would be playing 17th-ranked UCLA in the Rose Bowl, also hardly an outstanding game for the No. 3 team in the country.

It's not the BCS that is to blame for our lousy pairing with Florida State, rather the whole bowl system. So before unintelligent fans point their finger at the BCS, take a step back and marvel at how the BCS finally got its only job right -- having No. 1 USC play No. 2 Texas.

As far as No. 3 Penn State and the rest of the teams go, as long as bowl games are played, college football's postseason is far from perfect.