CubColtPacer

Don't poo poo on Jim. I think we all should take 24 entire hours and focus on a move that actually has a bit of logic and improves our ballclub. Tomorrow we can lament at the fact that he's fixing mistakes. I just don't see the point in applauding a move that only accomplishes making a previous move less bad. Every single transaction affects other transactions and can only be judged in the big picture of the state of the franchise. So when they trade away a productive underpaid player it shouldn't be criticized because in the long-term state of the franchise getting that player in the first place was still a good move? For example, Hendry made the Harden and Miles moves just a few months apart. And now he's undone both of them. The Harden move wasn't a mistake in the first place so he was applauded for getting him and then criticized for letting him go. The Miles move was a mistake so he was criticized when he got them and he should therefore be praised when he gets rid of him in a pretty productive move. Measuring everything by the long-term state of the franchise is unrealistic because teams frequently make both good and bad decisions involving one player. That doesn't mean Hendry is absolved from signing Miles. His time with the Cubs is still a net negative. But it's a more positive than it was 24 hours ago.

J.P. Blevins and Mike Wuertz Cubs have given up Damien Miller, Jerry Blevins, Mike Wuertz, Rob Bowen, Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson, Josh Donaldson and Matt Murton In return they've gotten Rich Harden, Michael Barrett, Jason Kendall, Chad Gaudin, Richie Robnett, and Justin Sellers. I'd say Hendry is whupping Beane's ass right now. Yeah, the Wuertz trade is the only one that Beane has really won. Even the Blevins trade hasn't been a problem for the Cubs after they got a little lucky and managed to net Flaherty because of Kendall.

I think that Bradley is a Plan B option for several teams. I do think the desperation does have some level of impact, though. The primary (or only if you believe some studies) power in any negotiation is the willingness to walk away. If you are in a negotiation and you let the buyer know that you absolutely have to deal and will not walk away, your negotiation position in any 1-1 situation is lessened. If you let the entire market know that you absolutely have to deal and will not walk away, and if the players in that market have an opportunity to share information -- then your position with them collectively is lessened as well. I don't know that he's impacted a huge amount - ultimately he could still walk away and play Bradley again in 2010. But I do believe he hurt his position somewhat. I agree with Bradley being a plan B which is why I don't think the Cubs want teams starting to turn to other outfielders who are also plan B options. I agree that in a 1-1 negotiation that the willingness to walk away is the absolute most important part of the negotiation. I disagree when there are so many other teams involved. Even if everybody in the league knows that, they still have to compete with each other. And they don't want the team in their division to get a huge discount on Bradley when they could get a slightly lesser discount on him. As I said in my previous post, the one thing that you do get is that teams will never overpay even slightly from what they feel his value is. But I don't think that's a concern in Bradley's situation because teams rarely overpay for players who are considered risks like him. They like to exercise caution when it comes to players like Bradley. And so the eagerness by the Cubs to move him hasn't really affected his current value at all because the only thing it hurt was irrelevant anyway.

I disagree that it doesn't matter. Last year, the owner of the Padres made it known that Peavy needed to be traded before the start of the season. Well, he didn't get traded at the beginning of the season. Between the owner letting his marriage woes become a team problem and Towers completely failing Negotiations 101, the market for Peavy dried up. If the Padres would have spoken privately with Peavy first, it's quite possible that Peavy would have granted a trade to more teams, maybe wouldn't have gone public with what teams he was or wasn't willing to be traded to, and if Towers wouldn't have spent more time talking than he should have, it's quite possible teams would have attempted to outbid each other for Peavy's services. Instead, it filtered down to just a discussion between Towers and Hendry, and this time Hendry wasn't willing to pay the necessary cost to acquire Peavy. No team has to have Bradley. He's a luxury item. In other words, he would be a nice player to have, but only in what it would cost to get him. True, he's better than some of the players on the teams that are looking at him, but they can spend any money it might cost for Bradley and upgrade elsewhere and potentially be better overall without upgrading the position Bradley would have been playing. It's sorta like making that trip to Tijuana. That mexican blanket sure would be nice to have, but only on my terms, not yours. I can go home with out it. This is what I'm willing to give, otherwise I'll spend the money I set aside for that on something else. I do believe the eagerness to move someone does devalue the player. With 29 teams out there, the likelihood you might win the bid over someone else isn't very good to begin with, especially when you have teams like the Yankees and Red Sox who can throw money at everyone. Basically, a few teams are showing moderate interest because they think Hendry might be willing to pick up the whole tab. Other players have been moved under those pretenses, so maybe that's where the interest really lies. Let's also remember how ridiculous Texas and Tampa (two teams linked to be interested) likes to get with trade offers. If they can pillage another owner, they will. I thought they did talk to Peavy and his agent before the whole thing started and got his approved list of teams. I think the Peavy situation was a clear case of the Padres putting too large of a price on a player with a large contract. They were asking way too much for him and teams simply weren't wiling to give up that much value. The Cubs came closest which is why there were so many rumors connecting them but at the end of the day the Padres were too greedy and mistimed the market badly. I would definitely agree with you that teams are not going to be desperate to acquire Bradley and that he'll be a luxury item. For certain players when teams are desperate, they are willing to overpay based on their needs. That won't happen with Bradley. But they will be willing to pay what they believe to be a fair price for him if they have to after they try to get the best discount they can. That won't involve paying his entire contract (nobody but the Cubs wanted to pay that much last year and his value has dropped with the bad season and continued troubles) but they'll pay close to what they think he's worth unless they can get a better discount on a different outfielder. I believe the eagerness to move someone can depress value. Sometimes it brings up questions of what that team is hiding about that player and you never get the chance to have a team suddenly decide to overpay for a player. But in this case neither of those scenarios apply and I don't see how the Cubs have dropped his value any more by being eager to move them. That eagerness hasn't affected what any other team thinks of Bradley because everything was so public before that. And it's what other clubs think of Bradley that is important and not what the Cubs think.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have? It's not the sentence I would have picked, but I think I know what he means. Essentially, the Cubs bought Bradley for $21 (actually 21 million, but for the sake of the analogy). They're now putting him on Ebay. They are desperate to get rid of him so they put absolutely no reserve price on him. Whatever the best bid is the buyers are going to get Bradley no matter what. They start the bidding at 99 cents. But as long as there are multiple bidders the price will be driven up a little past what the second best bidder wants to pay. It doesn't matter if there is a reserve price or not-people are going to bid similar amounts either way. So the fact that the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him (which davearm is calling availability) is not affecting the purchase price (the value) as long as there is competition (or a competitive marketplace as he calls it). Now, it doesn't work if 1 bidder is willing to go significantly above what other bidders are. In that case, that bidder is getting a discount because the seller is desperate to get rid of Bradley and doesn't have leverage to hold out for much more than what the second best bidder was offering. But since it looks like most teams are valuing Bradley about the same, that leverage is mostly meaningless in this case and the Cubs will likely receive about the same amount of trade value for Bradley as they would if they were willing to keep him. Also, the more the Cubs can hide the value that each team is offering the more they force teams to pay much closer to what they think is Bradley's actual value because they force teams to risk losing a discount by holding out for a bigger one and losing Bradley to another team. Understand what you're saying. That's not at all what his sentence says. Also, the marketplace is dynamic because Bradley's not the only OF available on eBay. Prospective buyers may want to see if they can get a Jason Bay at a bargain price before they choose to bid on a Milton Bradley. The people who lose out on the sexy auctions may come back to Bradley with more interest later on. I definitely agree that the dynamic nature of the market goes against the analogy. In fact, that's going to be the hardest job for the Cubs in the offseason. While I believe the previous analogy indicates that teams will offer what they feel Bradley is worth (and not shortchange the Cubs just because they are desperate), how much Bradley is worth to their team will change based on the available options and money available. The Cubs have to figure out when is the time in the offseason in which the market for Bradley is at its absolute highest. That isn't based on the desperation level of the Cubs but trying to gauge the desperation level of the other teams involved. And they cannot allow the market to get down to 1 team, because as soon as it's only 1 team interested they can pay whatever price they want. That's why I think the Cubs are so interested in getting this done early. They'll wait just long enough to get the premier free agents out of the way but they'll definitely try to trade him before teams start filling their corner outfield holes with their Plan B options.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have? It's not the sentence I would have picked, but I think I know what he means. Essentially, the Cubs bought Bradley for $21 (actually 21 million, but for the sake of the analogy). They're now putting him on Ebay. They are desperate to get rid of him so they put absolutely no reserve price on him. Whatever the best bid is the buyers are going to get Bradley no matter what. They start the bidding at 99 cents. But as long as there are multiple bidders the price will be driven up a little past what the second best bidder wants to pay. It doesn't matter if there is a reserve price or not-people are going to bid similar amounts either way. So the fact that the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him (which davearm is calling availability) is not affecting the purchase price (the value) as long as there is competition (or a competitive marketplace as he calls it). Now, it doesn't work if 1 bidder is willing to go significantly above what other bidders are. In that case, that bidder is getting a discount because the seller is desperate to get rid of Bradley and doesn't have leverage to hold out for much more than what the second best bidder was offering. But since it looks like most teams are valuing Bradley about the same, that leverage is mostly meaningless in this case and the Cubs will likely receive about the same amount of trade value for Bradley as they would if they were willing to keep him. Also, the more the Cubs can hide the value that each team is offering the more they force teams to pay much closer to what they think is Bradley's actual value because they force teams to risk losing a discount by holding out for a bigger one and losing Bradley to another team.

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history). I agree with all of that besides the Cubs position. It appears that this isn't a situation where one team puts Bradley's value at much higher than others do. So the Cubs position of desperation is pretty much irrelevant. This is kind of like a free agent situation. Teams are trying to bid as little as they can. They will be willing to bid as high as what they perceive his value to be though if other teams are also bidding little amounts. But I agree Bradley's contract is the biggest thing depressing his value because no club seems to think he's worth that much. His health and his attitude make the amount they're willing to pay even lower. In the end, Bradley will be traded for very close to what other teams would be willing to pay even if the Cubs weren't desperate to trade him.

depends on whether they drop out of the BCS Top 12 or not Top 14. And Oregon will stay in the top 14 unless they get absolutely demolished in the game and pollsters punish them for that. I can't see them getting picked even if they stay in though. You usually lose credit if you lose your last game of the season especially when that game could have played your way into the BCS. That will probably be enough to push them below Iowa/Penn State. And I don't see a 3 loss Oregon who would not have played well over the last month of the season being picked over an undefeated Boise State team even with travel considerations. I think even the Fiesta bowl would stay away from that firestorm. I definitely don't think another BCS bowl would want a Pac 10/Big 10 matchup either so they would have to shake up the matchups after they were chosen. I see Oregon's chances in that scenario to just be a little higher than Virginia Tech's, but I don't see either having much of a chance at this point.

Soriano, ARam, and Zambrano have a history of injuries. So, saying the Cubs were over .500 with them being injured doesn't mean much, when it should have been reasonably expected that they would get injured anyway. They are a .500 team if they don't have contingency plans for when players get injured or underperform again. No team can have a contingency plan when they have the number of injuries the Cubs had. If you don't believe me ask the Mets. Last year ARam had 55% of the ABs that he averaged in the last 7 seasons, Soriano had 85% of the ABs that he averaged over the last 3 seasons when he has had "a history of injuries" (before that he played almost every game for quite a few years), and Zambrano pitched 80% of the innings he's averaged the 6 years before. Every team suffers injuries, but when they become excessive the Win-Loss stat is going to suffer. When your "regular" starting lineup is on the field 6-8 times out of 162 games, you aren't going to be a contender. In 2010, there's no reason to think ARam is going to miss half the season, Zambrano will miss 20% of his starts, Soriano will play most of the season on one leg, Dempster will break his toe hopping over the dugout railing, etc. Injury problems mount as guys get older and deal with more and more past injuries. And if there's one thing the Cubs didn't suffer from, it was a lack of Soriano on the field. When he did play, he sucked. More of that doesn't help. And the best of that group, Ramirez, is a lock to get injured again. He always has and he always will. He's going to miss time. I wouldn't call it a lock that he's going to miss time...at least not a significant amount. He played 157 games in 2006 and played 149 in 08 (and 4 of the 13 games he missed were the Cubs resting starters the final week of the season after they clinched). So two out of the last four years he hasn't hit the DL at all. And even if he misses more time like he did in 05 or 07 and plays in the 120-140 game range, that still means he's very, very likely to play 40-50 more games than he did this year. That's a quarter of the season that was lost at the position that the Cubs are most vulnerable at. Even if other players on the team have serious injuries next year, having Ramirez be likely back for a much bigger percentage of the season will be a big help to the team.

I believe so. Fangraphs only has the Athletics/Cubs numbers combined for 2008, and Harden threw all 4 pitches over the course of the year but the other two were very limited compared to previous years. But 2008 has all sorts of red flags attached to it. He changed leagues in the middle of the year which made his 2 pitches have more deception than they otherwise would have. He gave up a large percentage of fly balls and yet kept the ball in the ballpark the best he ever had even while moving to a smaller ballpark. He also stranded an abnormally large percentage of runners (84.4%). He also continued his string from 2005/2006 of having a much better BABIP than his LD percentage would suggest. This year the only number that was out of line on his peripherals was his HR rate. And we know that wasn't because of cheap home runs as people were clobbering the ball off of him. All the rest of his numbers returned to normal luck status for most pitchers. Harden still has the potential to be the guy who defies the norms and becomes the dominant pitcher he was in 2005 and 2008. He still has one of the best upsides in the league But there's also a huge downside to him that is irrespective of health. Even when healthy, a 2 pitch Harden might end up walking too many and giving up too many home runs to be a consistently great pitcher. When you add in the fact that he's likely not going to go over 160 innings and is a threat to miss a very large percentage of the season, then his value is just not that high. Would I have offered arbitration? Probably...but that's because I really think some teams will want to take the risk with him. A 10 million dollar Harden is not a great investment for any team that is not desperate for pitching though so I would really hope that he wouldn't accept. The roster issues he's going to cause during the year is going to depress his value and his production when healthy is a huge question mark. He could be a huge steal for some team, but I believe the percentages favor him being overvalued by getting that much guaranteed between the money spent, the fact that you have to give him as much extra rest as possible to help his effectiveness, and the fact that he'll have to skip starts at random times without going on the DL.

I'll also copy my post here as this is probably the better thread for what may end up being a longer discussion: It has to be considered though that Harden was dominant with a very different arsenal of pitches that he now has. He turned from a 4 pitch pitcher to a 2 pitch pitcher because of the injuries. While the differing actions of the changeup means that he's not quite that limited, it's still hard to say how much that has affected his career. He's far from a lock right now at being one of the best pitchers in baseball even if he's healthy.

It has to be considered though that Harden was dominant with a very different arsenal of pitches that he now has. He turned from a 4 pitch pitcher to a 2 pitch pitcher because of the injuries. While the differing actions of the changeup means that he's not quite that limited, it's still hard to say how much that has affected his career. He's far from a lock right now at being one of the best pitchers in baseball even if he's healthy.

I'm sure Bradley has had plenty of counseling previously in his career. It's not going to suddenly magically fix him in one offseason. Don't you think the Indians or the Dodgers probably tried that option before getting rid of a talented player? I'm not sure there has been one season in his career where Bradley didn't have some sort of incident that made his club look bad. Some years have been better than others, but they all have had their troubles. The Cubs can either bring him back and live with the PR hits that he will inevitably cause in order to hopefully get his potential production or they decide it's not worth it. But I don't quite get the work with him and hope the attitude gets better argument. It's been going on for 10 years now. Several organizations have tried to fix him and many have ended up dumping him just because he cannot keep himself away from trouble over a full major league season. The Cubs situation isn't even the low point of his career-it's probably only the 4th or 5th worst. Could the Cubs bring Bradley back and get away with it? Possibly. Could the fans learn to live with him? If he hits like he did with Texas, the fans will certainly give him a little more leeway. Is he going to do something that hurts whatever team he is with off the field in 2010? Almost certainly yes, and the pressure cooker in Chicago makes it almost certain that he'll have multiple incidents next year. If his production is worth likely making some fans very angry and also making Chicago a slightly less desirable place to play than before, then keeping him is the right move. I'm not sure if it's worth it or not. But we know what we have with Bradley, and as far as off the field goes 2009 was not a particularly bad year for him so it's not going to improve. His play on the field would hopefully improve and win some of the fans over, but it definitely would be rocky at times with Bradley even if the Cubs were winning.

If he somehow does get to 2000 yards, i dont know how you don't give it to him. For one, Peyton Manning. He's been great, but still. 2000 yards is insane. Peyton is right about on a 5000 yard pace. That's only happened once in league history. 2000 yards rushing has happened 5 times and 3 of those were in the last 12 years. But by the traditional criteria of the MVP, I'd have to say Brett Favre should be the runaway frontrunner right now. His statistics are absolutely ridiculous so far this season. If we're using the alternative definition of MVP (player having a great season who is also indispensable to their team) then players like Manning, Johnson, and Brees would have to be on top.

I'm shocked Stanford would run the ball in that situation. Just put the ball in the middle of the field and kick the extra point as time expires. They're still very likely to win, but I wouldn't want to have to defend against these receivers for even less than a minute. Too bad that ND didn't let them score the previous play after he broke through and saved their second timeout.

This is why bowls should be knocking down Notre Dame's door even though they are only a mediocre team. They have played ridiculously close games all season long and most of them have had tons of big plays and good offense in them. In 9 of their 11 games this year, the trailing team has had the ball trying to take the lead with less than 3 minutes left. Twice those teams have succeeded, 5 times they have failed, and twice the games went into OT. All of those games ended up being decided by 7 points or less. This looks like it will be game #10 that will fit into that exact same pattern. ND could very well lose this game and lose their bowl game, but you can match them up against most teams in the country and they'll give you a really exciting game.

Unless something wildly turns in this game, cross Oklahoma State off the BCS possibility list. They're getting pounded 20-0 after 3 quarters. That leaves the teams fighting for the elusive two spots as: Boise State, Iowa, Penn State, and Virginia Tech. I think if Miami wins today that they'll also be eligible when the season is over. The winner of BYU/Utah has a decent shot of becoming eligible, and there is still a small chance USC becomes eligible again. But it definitely looks like it will be Iowa/Penn State vs Boise in the Fiesta Bowl. I would call any of the 3 loss teams as huge underdogs in this fight mostly because of how late they've come into the picture.

Do you think Castros really ready? The last thing we want is to rush the guy. It will be interesting to see if Jaramillo can work miracles with Castro. All of the stories have said that Hendry is kind of prepping Theriot for a move to 2B, but I really think Castro needs a little more time in the minors. It wouldn't surprise me if he's called up part way into the season. You're right about not wanting to rush him. There would be a lot of pressure on a 20 year old playing SS on a contending team. It's been Hendry's M.O. to rush top prospects (see: Patterson, Pie, etc.) so it wouldn't surprise me if he broke camp with the big team Pie was not rushed. If Castro follows the Pie route, he won't see the major leagues until at least 2011 and possibly 2012 or 2013. And Hendry wasn't the GM when Patterson was rushed.

No, he's just talking about how the FSL list translates to the overall list. Vitters might be behind 13 certain players on the FSL list, but he is only going to be behind 6 of those same players on the overall list because the ranking criteria are different. But there are many other players who were not eligible for the FSL list who will also be ahead of Vitters on the overall list.

Martz was let go by the 49ers at the end of last season.

Seriously, try paying attention sometime. Who said be as good as DeRosa? How about be as good as he was in the past. Miles lost 100 points in both OBP and SLG off his career. But his career norms were already a downgrade from DeRosa's career, let alone his time in Chicago. They traded Mark DeRosa and signed his replacement, Aaron Miles, almost simultaneously. He was going to play a lot, likely 400+ PA if he was able to maintain his normal productio and stay healthy. He got hurt and he tanked, so they stopped playing him. But the plan was very obviously to have him be the new super sub guy. Just because you are wrong doesn't mean you have to be a jerk. Yes, Aaron Miles was signed to be the new super sub guy but his role was very different from DeRosa's. For one, a large part of DeRosa's value as a sub was in the OF, while Miles playing the OF was an afterthought (and that was proven by the fact that Miles didn't play a single inning in the OF this year). Miles was also signed to back up SS which was not DeRosa's role. And finally, DeRosa's main role on the team was not as a supersub but as the starting 2B. So they had one player who was the starter at 2nd and backed up at 3rd and the corner OF when there were injuries. Then they signed a player who was the short end of the platoon at 2nd base and backed up SS and 3rd. To say Miles replaced DeRosa is very misleading. One was a starter that with few injuries would have gotten 500 AB's at 2nd base. The other one was a bench player that needed injuries to be more than a limited platoon player. Miles only replaced DeRosa in 2 things. Playing at 2nd against left-handers, and backing up 3rd. That's only a small percentage of the total at-bats DeRosa had for the Cubs. You can say the Cubs wouldn't have signed Miles if they already had DeRosa, but that doesn't mean the same thing that they replaced DeRosa with Miles.

That's nice, but how do you propose accomplishing that one? Their teams aren't exactly giving them away, and neither is a free agent or soon-to-be free agent. If Cabrera is available you look into it because he will likely be the best player they have a chance to acquire and the best player on the team for several years. You don't pass on an impact bat because you have your eyes on a division rival's best player who is 4 seasons away from free agency. If you can get Cabrera now, you have his services now. I sincerely doubt either Gonzalez or Votto are unavailable if teams are willing to empty the farm to get them. Gonzalez especially has been rumored to be available for the right price.

I'm not a fan of giving so much value for a 1B when there are always 1B options out there that can give you 50-100 points less of OPS (and I realize I'm generalizing offensive value using OPS) and are not that highly sought after. There are several other impact bats that you could possibly find a better deal with a little patience. And if the Cubs want elite bats right now, I'd even take a gamble on consistency with Votto and Gonzalez knowing that the Cubs would save between 25-40 million on the deal rather than pay Cabrera in both premium prospects and cash. If I'm going to trade the farm (say 3 of the top 5 prospects including Castro) then I want a guy like Hanley Ramirez who is likely going to upgrade your team at least 125 points and often 200-250 points over the SS options who are available year to year on the trade and free agent market. Hanley is a rather unique player in the league. Cabrera is most certainly not. And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that the Cubs will have to take a huge hit defensively to get Cabrera and Lee in the same lineup this year. The Cubs don't even have a desperation factor for a 1st baseman..why pay absolutely top dollar right now for one? I'm not completely opposed to trading for Cabrera. But I probably wouldn't trade nearly the talent that they would want.

Its an ugly contract, but we'd be getting him for the entirity of his prime. He'll be 33 when the contract expires, this is a guy you can build a teram around. Weve got some great players, but we dont have an A Rod, or Pujols. This is the guy. One of the top 5 in the game. What makes Cabrera better than Prince Fielder? Or Mark Teixeira? Or possibly even players like Joey Votto, Adrian Gonzalez, or Ryan Howard? If Cabrera is a top 5 talent, then he is only barely there over a dozen other players in the league. Several of them don't have contracts that are worth 20 million per year. Cabrera likely still would be worth 20 million in free agency. But he isn't worth 20 million+top prospects being given up. It's likely a fair deal, but you don't trade lots of talent to acquire a fair deal when there are countless other options that can play 1st base and give you the same value as Cabrera or just a little less.

I know. And I'm arguing that your idea of what the selection committee perceives to be true isn't all that accurate. Sure, but as long as you have highly subjective (and cash driven) committees picking these games, some facts and logic go out the window. At the end of the day, a BCS bowl could take either PSU or Iowa as an at-large and I wouldn't be surprised by either choice of course b/c you're a PSU fan. But I'd be very disappointed if a BCS bowl passed on Iowa for PSU. Just as I was disappointed when KU got picked over Missouri a couple years ago (and I don't like either of those schools). These are the kinds of situations where the BCS really doesn't work. let me ask you this: if you had to pick one of PSU and Iowa to be in a BCS game based on which one "deserved" it (not based on tv viewers or ticket sales), which would you pick? I would pick Iowa. But I really think that Penn State could get in...Iowa had a lot of press being unbeaten, but their frequent close calls meant that it wasn't all good press. And now that they've lost 2 and have lost their starting QB, it sounds very much like the 2002 Notre Dame team who were a very similar type of team, started 8-0 before losing twice, and got passed over. The perception would be that Iowa's lucky streak has run out and now with the injuries that they would get blown out of a bowl game. Nobody knows anything about what Penn State would do. If the bowls did go on who actually deserved it, how would people rank them? I've ranked the teams based partly on how they would land in the at-large pool, as some teams win their conferences if they win out: TCU (if they don't lose they're ranked here..they should get in regardless) Alabama/Florida loser Texas (if they lose in the Big 12 Championship) Boise State (if they don't lose) Cincy (with a loss against Pittsburgh) GA Tech (with a loss against Clemson) Iowa Penn State Virginia Tech Oregon (loss against Oregon State) Oklahoma State Pittsburgh (loss against Cincy) There are teams who I think deserve it more than they will be considered (Boise, Cincy, Ga Tech). Then there are teams who will likely be considered higher up on the list than they should (Oklahoma State, Penn State, Iowa).