In 1994, after reading about the Ratings Percentage Index (used
to help decide what teams make the NCAA Tournament) in a magazine,
Jerry Palm, then a systems analyst for a bank in Chicago, decided
to replicate the formula himself. The Purdue graduate, computer nut
and avid sports fan created collegerpi.com, and the site
flourished. He then created collegebcs.com in 1999 to break down
the BCS formula. Palm is currently one of most popular sports talk
radio hosts around. Palm spoke with Michigan Daily football writer
Bob Hunt about the BCS.

The Michigan Daily: What should Michigan fans be hoping
for besides a Wisconsin loss as far as playing in a BCS bowl?

Jerry Palm: I would think the biggest thing would be
somebody beating Texas along the way. Oklahoma getting into the
Orange Bowl would be good because Michigan has a chance to be the
highest-rated one-loss team. The best chance is if Oklahoma goes to
the Orange Bowl, which opens up a spot in the Fiesta Bowl (the Big
XII champ goes to the Fiesta Bowl if it is not selected for the
title game) and Texas has a loss, so it really doesn’t have a
good Big XII team available, and Michigan becomes a nice option for
them.

Probably the biggest surprise in the rankings last week is that
Michigan didn’t get more of a boost for beating Purdue.
I’d really thought they would move up at least past Utah.

TMD: Who do you think the recent changes in the formula
benefit?

JP: We may not know really until the end of the year. I
think teams that play a bad schedule are going to benefit because
strength of schedule has been minimized. So, like Auburn, you may
say, “How could they play an easy schedule, it plays in the
SEC.” (But) they play a bad non-conference schedule, and
it’s in the weaker division of the SEC. Really, Michigan may
end up benefiting — they’re non-conference schedule
wasn’t all that good, and it misses Wisconsin in the Big Ten.
That’s kind of hurt it in the computers, but the computers
don’t have as much emphasis in (the BCS standings) this year
and there is no strength of schedule factor. So teams that
don’t play a tough nonconference schedule won’t be hurt
as much.

One thing to keep in mind about this new formula is that it does
not fix any of the perceived problems of the past. Everything that
people have perceived to have gone wrong in the past can still go
wrong again in this formula. You can have a team that doesn’t
win its conference play for the title. You can have No. 1 vs. No.
3. You can even have No. 2 vs. No. 3 if there is not enough
consensus among the top three teams. If that happens again,
you’ll see reaction, which is what they do.

TMD: How has the stripping of the margin of victory in
these computer rankings affected things?

JP: It’s ironic. They haven’t stripped it.
They took it out of the computers, but now that they have more
influence on the polls, the polls don’t care about strength
of schedule, but they do care about margin of victory. If you play
a bad opponent, and you don’t beat them bad enough, you could
get hurt in the polls, which is two-thirds of the formula. After a
couple of years ago when they took it out of the computers, that
really reduced its impact on the formula. Now, they give the polls
so much influence, they’ve gone more with margin of victory
than they have with strength of schedule.

TMD: Do you think the recent changes in the formula have
been for the better?

JP: No, I think it’s worse. I don’t think the
voters do a good job ranking teams. I don’t think they should
be comfortable with the level of authority that they have.
There’s just so many ways that it’s wrong, and
you’re giving two-thirds influence over these formulas.
Voters just don’t have the time to do a proper job of it.

TMD: Do you think the powers that be have become a little
paranoid of computer rankings after what happened last year (with
the No. 1 team in both polls not making the title game)?