BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th
After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.
"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."
Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."
German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."
The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."
Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.
BCS Declares Germany the winner of WWII.
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Someone please tell me who BCS is/are/what.
I doubt that the people who programmed it are intelligent enough to feed it (a computer programme I expect) with enough information to actually figure out anything of any consequence. Big Blue manged to make a chess program that didnt declare iself the winner once more than 50% of the enemy pieces were taken, they played a full game of chess. The idiots who are known as BCS "Blatantly Cupid Stunts" obviously only work by one rule, we took more xxx than you so we win.
FYI: No one actually wins wars, some just lose more than others.
Andy
I doubt that the people who programmed it are intelligent enough to feed it (a computer programme I expect) with enough information to actually figure out anything of any consequence. Big Blue manged to make a chess program that didnt declare iself the winner once more than 50% of the enemy pieces were taken, they played a full game of chess. The idiots who are known as BCS "Blatantly Cupid Stunts" obviously only work by one rule, we took more xxx than you so we win.
FYI: No one actually wins wars, some just lose more than others.
Andy
Haha, ok so I guess this doesn't make any sense to non-Americans. BCS, Bowl Championship Series, is a system for determining the top 2 teams in college football to play for the National Championship since there isn't a playoff or elimination round or w/e you want to call it.
There has been a lot of grumbling about the system for quite a while now, even Obama said he thinks there should be a playoff and he will do his best to try to get one.
The Big-12 is a conference. There was a 3-way tie between Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma, they each have 1 loss. Texas lost to Texas Tech, Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma and Oklahoma lost to Texas. The 5th tie-beaker the Big-12 uses is that the team with the highest BCS ranking goes to the Big-12 Championship. So, right now you have #2 Oklahoma, #3 Texas and #7 Texas Tech. Texas beat Oklahoma, but because of the 3-way tie, they don't get to play for their conference championship.
Now, the fun really starts if Oklahoma loses in the Big-12 Championship because then you would most probably have Texas playing in the National Championship even though they didn't play for their conference championship, much less win it.
There has been a lot of grumbling about the system for quite a while now, even Obama said he thinks there should be a playoff and he will do his best to try to get one.
The Big-12 is a conference. There was a 3-way tie between Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma, they each have 1 loss. Texas lost to Texas Tech, Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma and Oklahoma lost to Texas. The 5th tie-beaker the Big-12 uses is that the team with the highest BCS ranking goes to the Big-12 Championship. So, right now you have #2 Oklahoma, #3 Texas and #7 Texas Tech. Texas beat Oklahoma, but because of the 3-way tie, they don't get to play for their conference championship.
Now, the fun really starts if Oklahoma loses in the Big-12 Championship because then you would most probably have Texas playing in the National Championship even though they didn't play for their conference championship, much less win it.
Well that all makes some sense.
Andy
That doesnt, it just sounds like crap that seemingly has nothing to do with American Rugby at all......BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th
After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.
"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."
Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."
German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."
The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."
Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.
Andy
Yes, for us Europeans this have absolutely different dimension. In my country even jokes on this subject aren't welcomed. andyb you are perfectly right - my 'ranking' is purely about wins in economical and political meaning - not about human life dimensionandyb wrote:FYI: No one actually wins wars, some just lose more than others.
I would probably put the losers in the same order as you, but I would have thought that the US would have won on financial grounds well ahead of any other major participant if for no other reason than we owed them and then payed them loads of cash for years, and that they were the only major military force that was not invaded at all (ignore pearl harbour) and thus their homes, businesses, schools, librarys, roads and ports were not destroyed at all.andyb you are perfectly right - my 'ranking' is purely about wins in economical and political meaning - not about human life dimension
Andy
Eh, the point is that it is satire. It is pointing out the need for a playoff system and how piss poor the BCS is at choosing the best 2 teams.
For instance, in 2003 iirc, a team from arguably the most difficult conference, the SEC, had a perfect record but because they were initially ranked so low they ended up 3rd at the end of the regular season and could not play for the national championship. Yes, I am a homer for the SEC, except Florida because I am a Georgia fan.
For instance, in 2003 iirc, a team from arguably the most difficult conference, the SEC, had a perfect record but because they were initially ranked so low they ended up 3rd at the end of the regular season and could not play for the national championship. Yes, I am a homer for the SEC, except Florida because I am a Georgia fan.
Pretty stupid really.For instance, in 2003 iirc, a team from arguably the most difficult conference, the SEC, had a perfect record but because they were initially ranked so low they ended up 3rd at the end of the regular season and could not play for the national championship.
As a request, could you please use language that the rest of the world might have a chance at understanding, a weblink would suffice for us to understand your "American only" posting. An example is below.
I only know 2 homers, one is fat, likes doughnuts, beer and is very stupid, the other one is in the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer SEC could mean almost anything, such as "Sexy Erotic Chickens", "Sleuthing Egyptian Chihuahuas" or many others http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/SECYes, I am a homer for the SEC, except Florida because I am a Georgia fan.
And I know Georgia to be in Europe as well as a County in the USA so I will let you off of that one
Andy
HAHAHAHAHA, I think I wet myself a little bit.
I agree, it is really stupid. This is why there needs to be a change.
The SEC is the South Eastern Conference. Georgia is a state, not a county. I am talking about the University of Florida Gators and the University of Georgia Bulldogs.
A "homer" is a little harder to explain. It is basically it is someone who is very biased for their team or town or w/e, even when it isn't even all that close.
So the specifics of this will probably be lost on most of you, you should still be able to get the idea.
I agree, it is really stupid. This is why there needs to be a change.
The SEC is the South Eastern Conference. Georgia is a state, not a county. I am talking about the University of Florida Gators and the University of Georgia Bulldogs.
A "homer" is a little harder to explain. It is basically it is someone who is very biased for their team or town or w/e, even when it isn't even all that close.
So the specifics of this will probably be lost on most of you, you should still be able to get the idea.
Homer vs. Non Homer Boston fan:
who is the best baseball player ever?
Homer Boston fan: Dood, Teddy Bahhlgame! best Eva!!
Non Homer Boston fan: Probably Willie Mays, or Babe Ruth - you might even throw Mantle in there.
Who is the best hockey player ever?
Homer Boston fan: Bobby Ooooah!! Dood!!
Non Homer Boston fan: It's really one of three guys - Mario, Wayne or Bobby. I gotta go Bobby because he's the home town guy.
Who is the best basketball player ever?
Homer Boston fan: Dude, Larry Bird - he did it all!!! He was the smahhtest playa eva!
Non Homer Boston fan: I'd love to say Bill Russel - 12 rings is hard to deny. But that was a different era with no free agency and teams that couldn't be broken up. So, you really have to go with jordan.
Who is the best QB ever?
Homer Boston fan: Dooooooood.....come on, guy!! Brady's the balls! He's way smahta than anyone eva!
Non Homer Boston fan: I mean, the first name that comes to mind is always Montana. but you can't forget Unitas, Elway, Marino and even Farve. Brady may one day be in that conversation. But not yet.
Which team was most dominating in it's respective sport?
Homer Boston fan: DUDE!! It's, ah, like the B's in the 1970's, the C's in the 1960's and those early 1900's Red Sox DOMINATED, dude....And this pats dynasty? Clearly the bets ever.
Non Homer Boston fan: Well, lets see - Montreal Canadians, 24 championships, Yankees 26 - so there's your answer there..You gotta go with the celtics of the 1960's - although the Bulls would make a good argument and you really have to consider the pro-NFL dominance of the Packers, no? Otherwise, the Pats actually have a chance to be one of the best.
Make sense to all of you?
If the Big 12 used the same division tie-breaker as the SEC, Texas would have gone to the Big 12 championship game. In the SEC, when there is a 3 way-tie, they use the BCS ranking to throw out the lowest ranked team (Texas Tech) and then use the head-to-head game to choose the winner (Texas, since they beat OU).
The Big 12 uses the BCS ranking to choose the winner among the teams in the 3-way tie, so OU is the representative from the South Division in the Big 12 championship game.
The Big 12 uses the BCS ranking to choose the winner among the teams in the 3-way tie, so OU is the representative from the South Division in the Big 12 championship game.
I looked at this thread last night, and I also had no idea what BCS was, I just thought it was some kind of computerised wargame simulation, perhaps based on the assets available to each WWII participant. Thanks for explaining.Ch0z3n wrote:Haha, ok so I guess this doesn't make any sense to non-Americans. BCS, Bowl Championship Series, is a system for determining the top 2 teams in college football to play for the National Championship since there isn't a playoff or elimination round or w/e you want to call it.
Anyway, based on my above supposition, this bit is where I realised there had to be something wrong:
The Complete Military History of FranceCh0z3n wrote: The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."
-
klankymen
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 1069
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Munich, Bavaria, Europe
If by your country you mean the UK, I'll have to disagree. Nobody makes more WW2 Jokes than the brits. Just watch monty python / fawlty towers. Or even more current - top gear.wojtek wrote:
If a brit tells a German some kind of joke as an obscure reference to WW2, the german would most likely not even get it, because unlike the brits, who got hung up on WW2 for the next 65 years, the Germans just decided that they got the shit bombed out of them, and now it's time to move on. (Oh, and they're embarrassed about the past abit, so jokes on the subject really aren't too welcome here)
Thats why the jokes are so popular over here(Oh, and they're embarrassed about the past abit, so jokes on the subject really aren't too welcome here)
Most people in the UK consider it good sport to make jokes about Germans and the French, the rest of europe is pretty much let off. There used to be a lot of maliciousness involved, but over the last 63 and a bit years it is more of a standing joke (and standard practice) to make fun of (in the joke sense) of the Germans but without the maliciousness, hatred and anger.It is still standard practice to ridicule the French, but that is for many and different reasons.
Andy
I'm from Poland but abroad since years...klankymen wrote:If by your country you mean the UK, I'll have to disagree. Nobody makes more WW2 Jokes than the brits. Just watch monty python / fawlty towers. Or even more current - top gear.wojtek wrote:
If a brit tells a German some kind of joke as an obscure reference to WW2, the german would most likely not even get it, because unlike the brits, who got hung up on WW2 for the next 65 years, the Germans just decided that they got the shit bombed out of them, and now it's time to move on. (Oh, and they're embarrassed about the past abit, so jokes on the subject really aren't too welcome here)
-
klankymen
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 1069
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Munich, Bavaria, Europe
I assumed something a long those lines, which is why I enquired.wojtek wrote:I'm from Poland but abroad since years...klankymen wrote:If by your country you mean the UK, I'll have to disagree. Nobody makes more WW2 Jokes than the brits. Just watch monty python / fawlty towers. Or even more current - top gear.wojtek wrote:
If a brit tells a German some kind of joke as an obscure reference to WW2, the german would most likely not even get it, because unlike the brits, who got hung up on WW2 for the next 65 years, the Germans just decided that they got the shit bombed out of them, and now it's time to move on. (Oh, and they're embarrassed about the past abit, so jokes on the subject really aren't too welcome here)
The brits on the other hand can't seem to get over it, it's the last victory they've had in 63 years
TBH if you've lived both places, you start to wonder who really won...
Last victory in 63 years? Remember the 1982 Falklands War? Ah, wojtek beat me by a minute...
IMO Germany has lost WWII because Adolf Hitler was an idiot. A gambler that got lucky for several years and thought luck can last forever.
I played a lot of Panzer General games many years ago and was intrigued why didn't Germany actually win (I did relatively easy!).
My analysis showed an overestimation of German forces and resources compared with the proposed goals.
If those goals would have been properly defined and resources properly allocated, IMO the invasion of Russia would have been succesful.
Beyond that, invasion of the UK was easy, all that Germany needed was an effective anti-ship weapon to break the mighty Royal Navy.
Invasion of the USA would have been a totally different matter, especially since the USA would have used the A-bomb.
IMO Germany has lost WWII because Adolf Hitler was an idiot. A gambler that got lucky for several years and thought luck can last forever.
I played a lot of Panzer General games many years ago and was intrigued why didn't Germany actually win (I did relatively easy!).
My analysis showed an overestimation of German forces and resources compared with the proposed goals.
If those goals would have been properly defined and resources properly allocated, IMO the invasion of Russia would have been succesful.
Beyond that, invasion of the UK was easy, all that Germany needed was an effective anti-ship weapon to break the mighty Royal Navy.
Invasion of the USA would have been a totally different matter, especially since the USA would have used the A-bomb.
Hitler made his own bad luck by not listening to his generals. I've done a fair bit of research on WWII and there were more than a handful of situations where a decision or two could have made the war end very differently.
Either way, the article was a satire of the BCS, not an academic study of WWII.
Either way, the article was a satire of the BCS, not an academic study of WWII.
Tzupy wrote:Last victory in 63 years? Remember the 1982 Falklands War? Ah, wojtek beat me by a minute...
Or maybe he understood this what what others didn't see? On the front of me I have book - The military strength of the powers, Max Werner, 1939 - where is stated common believes of those times - Powers are Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Italy (!!!), Poland (!!!), Japan, USA. Hitler understood - in his wacky way - that those powers are or paper tigers (Poland, Italy), or have flawed strategy (France), or are busy somewhere else (England), or are busy with themselves (Russia and purges in Red Army in 1930's). He wasn't alone in this believes - many senior generals in England, France and Poland understood how weak they really are...Tzupy wrote:IMO Germany has lost WWII because Adolf Hitler was an idiot. A gambler that got lucky for several years and thought luck can last forever.
I'm playing General Panzer 2 and 3 since 7-8 years and as entertaining as it is but it's still - just a game...Tzupy wrote:I played a lot of Panzer General games many years ago and was intrigued why didn't Germany actually win (I did relatively easy!).
I agree - Germany didn't have neither manpower nor natural resources for such conquest... They should read first 'Supplying war' by Martin Van CreveldTzupy wrote:My analysis showed an overestimation of German forces and resources compared with the proposed goals.
Eventually they could use Roman Empire strategy, but this was impossible with their 'faith'.No way. Have you ever been in Russia? Do you understand how HUGE this country is?Tzupy wrote:If those goals would have been properly defined and resources properly allocated, IMO the invasion of Russia would have been successful.
This was their main mistake - engaging USA - they didn't learn they lesson from WWI. They didn't understand American 'spirit' and consequences of that, they didn't understand reserves of this country and culture. Admiral Yamamoto - thanks to his years in America studying at Harvard University - understood this very well...Tzupy wrote:Beyond that, invasion of the UK was easy, all that Germany needed was an effective anti-ship weapon to break the mighty Royal Navy.
What you mean by 'effective anti-ship weapon' ?
??? Do you think that Americans could use A-bomb on their own territory?Tzupy wrote: Invasion of the USA would have been a totally different matter, especially since the USA would have used the A-bomb.
OK, first I must say that I despise National-Socialism as much as I despise Communism, so no one gets the wrong idea.
I simply enjoyed the 'conquer-the-world' games and wanted to find out how the real thing could have happened.
Germany is my choice for the scenario of taking over the world because of the geographical position, and their weapon manufacturing skills.
IMO the invasion of Russia would have succeded if it were postponed for 1942. In the mean time:
Germany and Italy should have invaded Malta in November 1940, securing the transport lines to North Africa.
Then a sizable force of 6-7 armored divisions should have been placed under Rommel's command, which would have ensured the fall of Egypt.
During the summer of 1941 the huge oil reserves in the Middle East would have been secured for Germany.
For the invasion of Russia the German army lacked proper anti-tank weapons, like the 7.5 cm Pak40: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_PaK_40
Hitler didn't believe how many tanks, even if they were mostly obsolete, the Russians had, nor were the Germans prepared for the new KV-1 and T-34.
I believe that if the Germans would have deployed enough anti-tank weapons and also had enough fuel for offensive operations, they would have at least encircled Moscow.
And the next year the southern offensive would have taken Stalingrad before reinforcements could have been sent. In both cases it was pretty close.
By anti-ship weapon I mean something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X
But Hitler was more interested by 'terror weapons' like the V-1 and V2, instead of the precision weapons that could have made a difference.
If the USA would have been invaded, IMO they would have used the A-bomb on their own territory.
It's not the H-bomb, its damage radius is small by comparison, and if used on invasion beaches, there wouldn't have been many civilian casualties.
I simply enjoyed the 'conquer-the-world' games and wanted to find out how the real thing could have happened.
Germany is my choice for the scenario of taking over the world because of the geographical position, and their weapon manufacturing skills.
IMO the invasion of Russia would have succeded if it were postponed for 1942. In the mean time:
Germany and Italy should have invaded Malta in November 1940, securing the transport lines to North Africa.
Then a sizable force of 6-7 armored divisions should have been placed under Rommel's command, which would have ensured the fall of Egypt.
During the summer of 1941 the huge oil reserves in the Middle East would have been secured for Germany.
For the invasion of Russia the German army lacked proper anti-tank weapons, like the 7.5 cm Pak40: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_PaK_40
Hitler didn't believe how many tanks, even if they were mostly obsolete, the Russians had, nor were the Germans prepared for the new KV-1 and T-34.
I believe that if the Germans would have deployed enough anti-tank weapons and also had enough fuel for offensive operations, they would have at least encircled Moscow.
And the next year the southern offensive would have taken Stalingrad before reinforcements could have been sent. In both cases it was pretty close.
By anti-ship weapon I mean something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X
But Hitler was more interested by 'terror weapons' like the V-1 and V2, instead of the precision weapons that could have made a difference.
If the USA would have been invaded, IMO they would have used the A-bomb on their own territory.
It's not the H-bomb, its damage radius is small by comparison, and if used on invasion beaches, there wouldn't have been many civilian casualties.
You can't be serious. What about Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Kansas City, St. Louis, Denver, Nashville, Memphis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Albuquerque, and a lot more?Ch0z3n wrote:You do realize that a majority of the US population is near those beaches you are talking about? Look at the largest US cities by population, most aren't in the middle of the country. As Daniel Tosh so eloquently put it "The middle of the country is for people who gave up on their dreams." :lol:
Dreams? You must mean nightmares. BTW, Orlando is a shit hole.
I think you are talking about Auburn in 2004 which went undefeated in the regular season, along with USC and Oklahoma. They finished 3rd in the BCS rankings, not because of where they started, but because USC and Oklahoma were better than Auburn. A bunch of crybabies.Ch0z3n wrote:Eh, the point is that it is satire. It is pointing out the need for a playoff system and how piss poor the BCS is at choosing the best 2 teams.
For instance, in 2003 iirc, a team from arguably the most difficult conference, the SEC, had a perfect record but because they were initially ranked so low they ended up 3rd at the end of the regular season and could not play for the national championship. Yes, I am a homer for the SEC, except Florida because I am a Georgia fan.
Having been to Germany myself, my impression is that most of them are very embarrassed about it.klankymen wrote:If by your country you mean the UK, I'll have to disagree. Nobody makes more WW2 Jokes than the brits. Just watch monty python / fawlty towers. Or even more current - top gear.
If a brit tells a German some kind of joke as an obscure reference to WW2, the german would most likely not even get it, because unlike the brits, who got hung up on WW2 for the next 65 years, the Germans just decided that they got the shit bombed out of them, and now it's time to move on. (Oh, and they're embarrassed about the past abit, so jokes on the subject really aren't too welcome here)