BCS Declares Germany the winner of WWII.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:30 pm

m0002a wrote:
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."
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?

Dreams? You must mean nightmares. BTW, Orlando is a shit hole.

Houston ain't far from the beach....

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:54 pm

IMO the invasion of Russia would have succeded if it were postponed for 1942.

"Hindsight is the perfect science".

What if: A fat sexist, racist, alcoholic had been put into power 2 years before he was, the war would have ended in less than 3 years.

What if: The idiot in the "White House" had got their act together earlier, the war would have ended much earlier.

What if: Germany had never attacked Russia, would Russia now own the world.

What if: Japan had joined forces with Germany on paper, but only decided to attack their arch enemy China, and no one else.

What if.............

Having been to Germany myself, my impression is that most of them are very embarrassed about it.

Should they not be is a better question to be asked.??? And that answer can only be made by each individual person.

As I mentioned previously: as time goes by the embarrassment diminishes, the problem is passed on by person to person, from generation to generation. In one generations time it will be far enough into the depths of history to not be a major problem, if German people still feel guilty then thats their choice.

Andy

m0002a · Post by **m0002a** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:07 pm

klankymen wrote:Houston ain't far from the beach....

But it is in the middle of the country (depending on how you look at it).

Houston is close enough to the Gulf of Mexico to be very humid, but far enough away to not get any ocean breeze. Let me put it this way--there is not a big market in Houston for steam saunas.

Ch0z3n · Post by **Ch0z3n** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:39 pm

andy, unlike now, back then the president couldn't just declare war. After WWI the US as a whole was fairly isolationist. There wasn't really anything Roosevelt could do till Pearl Harbor.

m0002a, use the edit button, don't make consecutive posts.

I'm guessing you are probably from the middle of the country. Remind me again which team has beaten an SEC team in the BCS National Championship game? Oh right, none. The SEC is 4-0. IIRC the nest best conference is like .500, maybe 1 game over at most.

Houston is in the middle of the country if it was 1 dimensional, but since it is not, Houston isn't in the middle of the country.

Chicago is a port
Houston is close enough to the water

Phoenix and Dallas are both in the Top 10.

Indianapolis 13th
Columbus 15th
Memphis 18th
Nashville 25th
Denver 26th
Atlanta 33rd
Albuquerque 34th
Kansas City 39th
St Louis 52nd
Cincinnati 56th

I'm glad you like Orlando so much. It isn't my favorite city either, I am just here for school.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:52 pm

unlike now, back then the president couldn't just declare war.

It took a lot of persuading for our government to do the same.

After WWI the US as a whole was fairly isolationist.

Like right now, with a coulple of wars and skirmishes in-between: what exactly has changed.

There wasn't really anything Roosevelt could do till Pearl Harbor.

Which is probably why millions of people cheered - the fact that a few thousand men were killed and many warships were destroyed was actaully a good thing. Many people in the UK at the time considered it fair and just that the Americans were at long last drawn into the war - political or not those people killed at Pearl Harbour were actually a blessing.

Andy

m0002a · Post by **m0002a** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:44 pm

Ch0z3n wrote:andy, unlike now, back then the president couldn't just declare war. After WWI the US as a whole was fairly isolationist. There wasn't really anything Roosevelt could do till Pearl Harbor.

m0002a, use the edit button, don't make consecutive posts.

I'm guessing you are probably from the middle of the country. Remind me again which team has beaten an SEC team in the BCS National Championship game? Oh right, none. The SEC is 4-0. IIRC the nest best conference is like .500, maybe 1 game over at most.

Houston is in the middle of the country if it was 1 dimensional, but since it is not, Houston isn't in the middle of the country.

Chicago is a port
Houston is close enough to the water

Phoenix and Dallas are both in the Top 10.

Indianapolis 13th
Columbus 15th
Memphis 18th
Nashville 25th
Denver 26th
Atlanta 33rd
Albuquerque 34th
Kansas City 39th
St Louis 52nd
Cincinnati 56th

I'm glad you like Orlando so much. It isn't my favorite city either, I am just here for school.

Regarding the SEC, they certainly are a very good athletic conference, but since the BCS has been in existence for 10 years and according to you they have only had a team ranked 1 or 2 in the final BCS rankings for 4 of those years, it appears that they are not as great as you claim.

The population rankings you listed are for city limits, not metropolitan areas, so some cities you listed have grossly misleading rankings. Here are the top 25 US Metropolitan Area rankings for 2007:

1 New York
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Dallas-Fort Worth
5 Philadelphia
6 Houston
7 Miami
8 Washington DC
9 Atlanta
10 Boston
11 Detroit
12 SF Bay Area
13 Phoenix
14 Ontario, San Bernardino, and Riverside CA
15 Seattle
16 Minneapolis-St Paul
17 San Diego
18 St. Louis
19 Tampa Bay
20 Baltimore
21 Denver
22 Pittsburgh
23 Portland
24 Cincinnati
25 Cleveland

I have lived the majority of my life in cities close to the water (at least by your definition), and visited every major US city (usually several times) but I would rank the time I spent living near Denver Colorado as the one of best places I have lived. I would rank Austin TX as second best place to live.

I have even lived in FL for quite a few years, and often return there for various reasons. Since you are going to school in Orlando, it is obvious that by attending a third rate college you have already â€œgiven up on your dreams.â€

Ch0z3n · Post by **Ch0z3n** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:11 pm

Being as I am from Florida, UGA and GT don't give me in-state tuition. Not really sure how you consider one of the largest universities in the country third rate, but whatever.

You win, I'm not going to argue with you on the internet. I have obviously said something that irrationally upset you, I am sorry.

m0002a · Post by **m0002a** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:29 pm

Ch0z3n wrote:Not really sure how you consider one of the largest universities in the country third rate, but whatever.

US News and World Report ranks the University of Central Florida as a tier 3 national university.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandrevie ... r+3/page+2

Yes, I graduated from a "tier 1" national university, but it was about 230 miles from a coast.

Emyr · Post by **Emyr** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:38 am

klankymen wrote:
wojtek wrote:Just to remind you - Falklands 1982. But they don't have jokes about that...
True, but no-one outside of the UK even knows of that war.... If the United States were to attack Jamaica it would be an easy win as well.

The UK weren't fighting the Falklanders, they were fighting Argentinians.
Also, stuff like the sinking of the Belgrano is harder to joke about because it's both more recent and more accurately documented.

And I thought BCS was British Computer Society before I read much of the thread...

Olle P · Post by **Olle P** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:43 am

Ch0z3n wrote:... with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, ...

Sweden was never attacked, at least not intentionally, let alone defeated.
(Churchill wanted to invade northern Sweden in early 1940 to gain control of the iron ore fields, but never got the rest of the British and French governments with him.)

andyb wrote:What if: The idiot in the "White House" had got their act together earlier, the war would have ended much earlier.

JFC Fuller came up with an interesting notion: Had USA not entered WW1 as a fighting part, that war would have ground to a halt (mutual ceasefire) by Christmas 1917.
USA could then enter the scene as a powerful mediator, negotiation a peace resulting in a draw.
That would prevent the very basic requirement for a WW2.
(As it was now the US entry prolonged the fighting and caused a peace treaty that could have no other outcome than a WW2.)

The tricky question that arise there is how Germany and US would handle the issue of German subs sinking US merchants.
Germany planned to do this, and wanted Mexico to attack USA to cause a diversion. The German request to the Mexican government was intercepted by the British intelligence and forwarded to the US.
Historically US reacted by quickly declaring war on Germany and (successfully) threatening Mexico to stay out of the conflict. What if US instead just told Germany that they knew what was being planned and asked them to reconsider?

andyb wrote:What if: Germany had never attacked Russia, ...

Not an option. The European part of Russia was the main objective for starting the war in the first place.

andyb wrote:What if: Japan had joined forces with Germany on paper, but only decided to attack their arch enemy China, and no one else.

Even more Chinese than the ten million plus casualties historically suffered would probably have died.

What if: A US gun boat didn't sink a Japanese submarine on international water off Hawaii very early in the morning of Dec 7, 1942, thereby starting the war with Japan and causing the retaliation attack on Pearl Harbour?

What if: Roosevelt decided to spare lives of his troops in the Pacific by accepting a conditional Japanese surrender by April '45?
VE-day would have become V-day!

Cheers
Olle

wojtek · Post by **wojtek** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:00 am

Emyr wrote:
klankymen wrote:
wojtek wrote:Just to remind you - Falklands 1982. But they don't have jokes about that...
True, but no-one outside of the UK even knows of that war.... If the United States were to attack Jamaica it would be an easy win as well.
The UK weren't fighting the Falklanders, they were fighting Argentinians.

Emyr: Did we suggetsed at any point that UK were fighting Falklanders?

klankymen: I don't think that Jamaica is good example. True is that it would be easy win for USA but Falklands is absolutely different story. It was one of most risky operations, madness from military point of view and UK won this conflict only thanks to unbelievable amount of luck

Emyr wrote:Also, stuff like the sinking of the Belgrano is harder to joke about because it's both more recent and more accurately documented.

I hope that you are not trying to say that WW2 isn't well documented. ... I don't think that sinking of Belgrano will be ever subject of jokes... Actually, it's subject of discussions did it was really needed...

Olle P wrote:What if: A US gun boat didn't sink a Japanese submarine on international water off Hawaii very early in the morning of Dec 7, 1942, thereby starting the war with Japan and causing the retaliation attack on Pearl Harbour?

?????????????????

Tzupy: Single weapon system will not change outcome of the modern war - it's not dark ages where English long bow was changing history...

Emyr · Post by **Emyr** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:57 am

The USA vs Jamaica suggestion appeared to denote a misunderstanding of the parties involved in the Falklands conflict.

The Belgrano point wasn't about documentation, just that people still remember the extensive media coverage. Hiroshima jokes are extremely rare. I predict it will take an extremely long time before anyone within tank-range of the events will joke about Georgia vs Russia.

wojtek · Post by **wojtek** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:29 am

Emyr wrote:The Belgrano point wasn't about documentation, just that people still remember the extensive media coverage. Hiroshima jokes are extremely rare. I predict it will take an extremely long time before anyone within tank-range of the events will joke about Georgia vs Russia.

I suppose that it has to do more with controversy surrounding sinking of Belgrano - I don't think that Royal Navy is particularly proud of this episode. But you are right about this conflict as a whole - it's too fresh ...

Regarding jokes about Georgia-Russia conflict. In Eastern Europe, where is strong anti-Russia climate in some communities, first jokes appeared very quickly - in 24h since the beginning I got 2 emails from friends in Poland with jokes on this subject - but mostly related to Polish aspect of this conflict with few which ridiculed Russian 'war machine'.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:52 pm

I suppose that it has to do more with controversy surrounding sinking of Belgrano - I don't think that Royal Navy is particularly proud of this episode.

According to Wiki

---

"Controversy over the sinking
The Belgrano sinking after being struck by torpedoes fired by HMS Conqueror

Legal situation

The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. However, exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate[7] (as did the Argentine government in 1994).

Though the ship was outside of the 200-mile (320 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action â€” on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

The rules of engagement were changed specifically to permit the engagement of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking."

---

Seems perfectly fine to me, and was already signed off with warnings given to the Argies a week prior to the sinking of the Belgrano.

It was officially a perfectly decent and legal sinking of a miltary vessel at war. The end - controversy over.

Andy

wojtek · Post by **wojtek** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:53 pm

I think that I should make some disclaimer. I'm not saying that it was illegal - I'm saying that it was controversial situation like many other in 'fog of war' across centuries which are debated by historians and not only. I hope that neither you nor any other British citizen feel in any way offended by my suggestions. I simply like such discussions...

andyb wrote:According to Wiki

Wiki it's always my source at the beginning - never last one, conclusive... Hope that you understand it.

andyb wrote:Seems perfectly fine to me, and was already signed off with warnings given to the Argies a week prior to the sinking of the Belgrano.

It was officially a perfectly decent and legal sinking of a miltary vessel at war. The end -

controversy over.

First of all - it wasn't a war - it was self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

"Aware of the international concern that the Belgrano had been attacked outside the Exclusion Zone, the War Cabinet agreed to its formal extension to up to 12 miles from Argentine coast."
Signals of War. The Falklands Conflict of 1982. 1990, Freedman, Lawrence, Gamba-Stonehouse, Virginia, p. 269

If you are interested in this problem, I suggest to read whole chapter from this book - 25 pages of good analysis.

And sorry for hijacking this thread.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:50 pm

I think that I should make some disclaimer. I'm not saying that it was illegal - I'm saying that it was controversial situation like many other in 'fog of war' across centuries which are debated by historians and not only. I hope that neither you nor any other British citizen feel in any way offended by my suggestions. I simply like such discussions...

I am not offended at all, I like discussions, its arguments I have problems with

As far as I can tell WW2 actually has far more meaning, hurt, pain, suffering, significance and most importantly feeling than the Falklands, even though it ended 37 years previous. I can only assume that its the sheer scale of the war that has affected our minds and hearts so much and for so long.

The Falklands was measured in hundreds of lives and weeks, rather than millions of lives and years. I have not met a soul who has even the slighted scar of the Falklands, and hundreds who were involved with or were directly affected by the second world war - the sheer scale of the events of the time is what keeps it at the forefront of our minds generations after it has been fought and lost.

Wiki it's always my source at the beginning - never last one, conclusive... Hope that you understand it.

Agreed, I just used it because its easy to find, but it also proves what I have seen on many documentaries.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject:
I think that I should make some disclaimer. I'm not saying that it was illegal - I'm saying that it was controversial situation like many other in 'fog of war' across centuries which are debated by historians and not only. I hope that neither you nor any other British citizen feel in any way offended by my suggestions. I simply like such discussions...

andyb wrote:
According to Wiki

Wiki it's always my source at the beginning - never last one, conclusive... Hope that you understand it.

andyb wrote:
Seems perfectly fine to me, and was already signed off with warnings given to the Argies a week prior to the sinking of the Belgrano.

It was officially a perfectly decent and legal sinking of a miltary vessel at war. The end -

controversy over.

First of all - it wasn't a war - it was self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

That doesnt matter to anyone on either side, people dont die under "Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." they die due to fighting enemy combatants - thats war no matter how you view it. A very small war about a pathetic bit of land, but its our land - no more need be said.

And sorry for hijacking this thread.

Its so much more interesting than American Rugby and its crap rules, that I feel obliged to hijack this thread

Andy

m0002a · Post by **m0002a** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:11 pm

andyb wrote:Its so much more interesting than American Rugby and its crap rules, that I feel obliged to hijack this thread

The rules for American Football are not crap, they are just complicated. It is a very intellectual game, and admittedly not always appreciated by mere commoners.

Olle P · Post by **Olle P** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:34 am

wojtek wrote:
Olle P wrote:What if: A US gun boat didn't sink a Japanese submarine ... causing the retaliation attack on Pearl Harbour?
????????

I know I'm pushing history a bit here. The attack on Pearl Harbour would have been initiated anyway.
Still too few know about the fact that US actually did "draw first blood" against Japan.

My memory is a bit vague, as it's been a few years since I read about it, but here's the story as I recall it:
A US gun boat was on patrol when it spotted a mini sub heading towards Honolulu. They tried to stop it, in a more or less polite manner, but the Japs kept moving (as they were entitled to by international law).
The gun boat commander then ordered fire for effect on the sub, and it was sunk around 4am local time, IIRC.
The events were reported back to Pearl Harbour, but not forwarded to any higher officer there, because it wasn't seen as important enough to wake anybody up.
As the full scale attack on Pearl came a couple of hours later the report was forgotten, and later on it was probably deliberately hidden and/or misplaced because of the inconvenience it would cause.

Cheers
Olle

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:02 am

It is a very intellectual game, and admittedly not always appreciated by mere commoners.

Oooooooh, handbags at fifty paces starting at noon.

The rules for American Football are not crap, they are just complicated.

They may be complicated, but the strange way the OP points out that you end up in a 3-way knockout, but the best team doesnt always win due to various stuff is silly. Its seems to be a mixture of league and cup which anyone sensible wouldnt do, its either a point based system where everyone plays everyone and the team with the most points go through OR its a straight knockout system.

Andy

Ch0z3n · Post by **Ch0z3n** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:32 am

There are 119 teams in the top division of college football, all the teams cant play all the teams, esp considering I think they play 12 games per year.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:59 am

There are 119 teams in the top division of college football, all the teams cant play all the teams,

Every country in the world that plays football uses divisions along the lines of Superb, Very Good, Good, Average, Poor, Crap, Worthless. The idea is very sensible, it allows teams of similar standing to only play each other and due to being in divisions, there are nothing like as many teams in a division so each team can play each other twice, once at home and once away.

Why dont they do what the rest of the world does with football, and apply the same logic to American Rugby.

esp considering I think they play 12 games per year.

If they play that few games, then why not break them down into groups of 13, and play each other once - thus 12 games per year (one per month). Or they could work by area, and create areas of 13 teams.

Andy

Ch0z3n · Post by **Ch0z3n** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:50 am

They are divided into conferences, usually 10-12 teams. In the SEC for example there are 12 teams, they are split into 2 divisions of 6 teams. Each year you play the 5 other teams in you division, 3 teams from the other division, and 4 teams "of your choice" IIRC.

They are loosely divided into "BCS" and "non-BCS" conferences. If you win a BCS conference you get to play in a BCS bowl game, but not necessarily the National Championship. If you win a non-BCS conference AND are ranked high enough, you can get an at-large bid into a BCS bowl game.

What you are talking about works great if there is a tournament, but since there isn't you have to play good teams outside of your conference and hope that you get ranked high enough.

It is a really shitty system that even the President-Elect doesn't agree with, it needs to be changed, but there is too much money in the contracts right now to really do anything.

My dad writes articles about the BCS every year or so, so I get to hear this a lot.

m0002a · Post by **m0002a** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:32 am

andyb wrote:They may be complicated, but the strange way the OP points out that you end up in a 3-way knockout, but the best team doesnt always win due to various stuff is silly. Its seems to be a mixture of league and cup which anyone sensible wouldnt do, its either a point based system where everyone plays everyone and the team with the most points go through OR its a straight knockout system.

It is a matter of opinion as to whether the best team in the Big 12 South Division advanced to Conference Championship. The Big 12 conference South Division had 3 teams finish with a 7-1 conference record and a 11-1 overall record (Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech). Texas beat Oklahoma, Oklahoma beat Texas Tech, and Texas Tech beat Texas. So the final tie-breaker is the one withe highest BCS rating, which is decided by a comination of 2 human polls (sports writters and coaches) and 6 computer rankings (based on strength of schedule, homefield advantage of each game, etc--the 6 computer rankings are slightly different). Oklahoma was ranked higher in the BCS rankings, mostly because of the human polls (Texas was ahead in the computer rankings).

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:56 am

It is a really shitty system that even the President-Elect doesn't agree with, it needs to be changed, but there is too much money in the contracts right now to really do anything.

All that needs to be done is to aggree the new system, and tell everyone that it wiill happen as of next season (or the one after if its deemed to be too short notice), then just change the system.

So the final tie-breaker is the one withe highest BCS rating, which is decided by a comination of 2 human polls (sports writters and coaches) and 6 computer rankings (based on strength of schedule, homefield advantage of each game, etc--the 6 computer rankings are slightly different). Oklahoma was ranked higher in the BCS rankings, mostly because of the human polls (Texas was ahead in the computer rankings).

That ranking system if far too complicated and simply not neccessary and no doubt causes huge amount of arguments and probably a few murders (wouldnt be the USA otherwise). As I have suggested above, just change the system at the start of a season - problem solved.

Andy

BCS Declares Germany the winner of WWII.

Re: BCS Declares Germany the winner of WWII.