Gonzaga and Wichita St.

[mr.hockey4242]

I just personally am not seeing any way how you can try and argue against an UNDEFEATED Wichita State being a 1 seed.


Man, they lost ZERO games. That means that they didn't slip up once. No matter who you are playing every team has an off game, and they managed to pull out every single one.


Just because they got an insanely tough draw in their 3rd round match up doesn't prove they were not deserving. UK ended up the ship and that game between WSU and UK was regarded as one of if not the best games of last years tourney.


You can't use hindsight to determine a teams worthiness of a seed.


In 2011 Marquette made the Sweet 16 as an 11 seed. And you are goddamn right they deserved an 11 seed(shit, maybe that was generous). They ended up as one of the final 16 teams playing, but they were not one of the 16 best. WSU last year did not, but they were definitely one of the 16 best teams.


You can't use what happens in the tourney as support. It is about the body of work leading up to it.


WSU as I think everyone on here has pointed out, had the body of work to get a 1 seed. A very, very well deserved 1 seed.

 

[dcZONAfan]

Normally, it's March, so a #1 seed losing before the FF is not a big deal. But I just see that with these specific kinds of teams lately, even getting to the EE being top ranked in both polls and seeding, with nothing in the last two months to get them ready doesn't end well, bottom line. It's a pattern that I see. I think if for a third straight year this type of team (this year GU), doesn't show in the second half of March, then, again, it's not crazy to question a trend, a pattern, and wonder why. I don't know, despite all of the season success of GU over the last 15 years, they haven't been to a EE in that span, so that would be impressive. But that kind of furthers my point. If they don't get blown out then its definitely something to consider. But I've had this problem with GU for a while that was exacerbated by them and WSU getting #1 seeds and still not getting far. Despite the fact that Few has more wins in the last decade or whatever than all but a couple, they still haven't gotten to the EE in 15 years. I think some of those reasons are similar with WSU when they weren't surprising anyone anymore, as a #1 seed.

I think that in general, being a #1 seed is a bunch of pressure for a school that just got done playing scrubs in gyms that in no way resemble being a #1 seed in the second half of March. It's one thing to have the Pacifics and the Drakes try and knock you off, and it's another to play against a top 15 team and top ten team to get to the Final Four; especially when you are the #1 seed in the bracket. I completely agree that a #1 seed is 40% likely to get to the FF, and I think it's even more difficult when you haven't seen that or better developed for that in the past two months. You don't just coast past anyone after the first round. You can't be underrated as a #1 seed. Everyone is completely focused on your game. Beating a #1 seed is the biggest game of the year outside a FF for a lot of schools. There is no pressure for a Cinderella.

The seeding is largely based on polls and the matrixes (and many also incorporate polls). But they don't account for the issue of going from the WCC to top teams trying to knock of a #1 seed deep into March. I believe there is something to be lost for not playing in the B1G or the ACC, or the B12. Even the Pac, SEC, and Big East are better to compare to March games than playing most of your games in front 2k people against USD, Pepperdine, LMU, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Pacific, and Portland. I don't think you are as good of a team when that is your competition, compared to teams in conferences that are playing in front of 10k plus and much better competition game in and game out, week in and week out (not to mention a more competitive conference tourney). I feel like those are the better, more tested, more developed teams both over the course of the whole season, and in preparation for March. I think all of that has a habit of playing out in March when one of those teams has a target on their back as a #1 seed. It's happened the last two years, and I see it lining up to happen for a third.

And that's all I'm saying. Simple observation that I wanted to discuss. That's it.

I'll admit I read only about one sentence in your novel, but wanted to point out that you can probably find about 10 instances in which, 3 years in a row, a #1 seed from a power conference lost before the EE. So your "trend" idea is just garbage

 

[CatsTopPac]

I just personally am not seeing any way how you can try and argue against an UNDEFEATED Wichita State being a 1 seed.


Man, they lost ZERO games. That means that they didn't slip up once. No matter who you are playing every team has an off game, and they managed to pull out every single one.


Just because they got an insanely tough draw in their 3rd round match up doesn't prove they were not deserving. UK ended up the ship and that game between WSU and UK was regarded as one of if not the best games of last years tourney.


You can't use hindsight to determine a teams worthiness of a seed.



In 2011 Marquette made the Sweet 16 as an 11 seed. And you are goddamn right they deserved an 11 seed(shit, maybe that was generous). They ended up as one of the final 16 teams playing, but they were not one of the 16 best. WSU last year did not, but they were definitely one of the 16 best teams.


You can't use what happens in the tourney as support. It is about the body of work leading up to it.


WSU as I think everyone on here has pointed out, had the body of work to get a 1 seed. A very, very well deserved 1 seed.

Is there a difference between WSU going undefeated and not getting a #1 seed, and Boise State, or Utah a few years ago, or another midmajor football program going undefeated and not being a part of the NC game?

 

[CatsTopPac]

I'll admit I read only about one sentence in your novel, but wanted to point out that you can probably find about 10 instances in which, 3 years in a row, a #1 seed from a power conference lost before the EE. So your "trend" idea is just garbage

I guess if someone were to predict that the #1 seeds from power conferences would not make the Sweet 16 two years in a row, based on something structural that they both had in common, I would certainly listen to what their justification was.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Great. Well, once again, I think we have gotten pretty far on this. I'm pretty sure that no one was going to change anyone's mind on this; nor should they, necessarily.

I do wish the discourse would have been a little better, but ultimately, we'll see what happens in March.

Trolly, my apologies for misspelling matrices. The x and c keys are right next to each other, and I spelled it correctly in a previous post.

 

[ericd7633]

I guess if someone were to predict that the #1 seeds from power conferences would not make the Sweet 16 two years in a row, based on something structural that they both had in common, I would certainly listen to what their justification was.

2011 Pittsburgh and 2010 Kansas were both knocked out before the S16. Or in other words in back to back years. I guess the Big East(at the time) and the Big 12 didn't prepare them for the tournament?

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Is there a difference between WSU going undefeated and not getting a #1 seed, and Boise State, or Utah a few years ago, or another midmajor football program going undefeated and not being a part of the NC game?

Huge differences. I really hope you are actually able to see the differences.

 

[ralphiewvu]

And you can jump ship whenever you want. You're throwing fucking tantrums on a random thread online. I don't know how many times to tell you. If you are so offended by my opinion of what weak conference schedules potentially do to #1 seeds over the last couple years, then by all means, you can kindly go fuck off. Is that really hard to understand?

Or does banging your keyboard calling me names make you feel good?

Yes, I'm the one throwing the tantrum. LOL

I am not offended by your opinion and actually understand your premise. However, as others have stated that opinion feels like you are downgrading the regular season. Sure they had a horrible in conference schedule but they can't help that. You have to judge teams by how they do in the regular season, not how you think they'll do in the tourney. WSU and GU earned their one seeds, even if they didn't end up where most thought.

N yes, banging my keyboard does feel good. Although you did call me names too, Pueblo.

 

[CatsTopPac]

2011 Pittsburgh and 2010 Kansas were both knocked out before the S16. Or in other words in back to back years. I guess the Big East(at the time) and the Big 12 didn't prepare them for the tournament?

And as I said, if you had predicted beforehand that both of those teams would be out before the SS for the same reason, I would definitely give you an audience as to your rationale.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

And as I said, if you had predicted beforehand that both of those teams would be out before the SS for the same reason, I would definitely give you an audience as to your rationale.

If you're under the impression that correctly predicting 2 out of 136 teams somehow adds credibility to your rant, Probability and Statistics would like to have a word with you. Their friend Sample Size might like in the discussion too.

 

[CatsTopPac]

If you're under the impression that correctly predicting 2 out of 136 teams somehow adds credibility to your rant, Probability and Statistics would like to have a word with you. Their friend Sample Size might like in the discussion too.

Well, Trolly, that's not exactly correct. I guess aside from the fact that I wasn't just correct on two of 136 teams ( I obviously guessed many more correctly than that), the guess was how many of the #1 seeds would not make it to the Sweet 16. My guess was that out of 8 possible teams, two specifically would not make it. They didn't, the rest did. So at very least, I was correct on 8 of 8.

Not to say that it is the exact parallel, but if someone were to guess that both Duke and Mizzou would lose in the first round as #2 seeds, and based it on the same reason, you wouldn't be going on about probability, statistics, and sample size would you? I mean, that's only 2 out of 68, right? I'd be very interested in how they arrived at such a conclusion.

Again, even acknowledging that 8 of 8 isn't strong in the grand scheme of predictive analysis, if someone predicted that two back to back #1 seeds would not make it out of the first weekend because of a specific reason (and was correct), I would be interested in their reasoning.

Looks like the odds of a #8 seed beating a #1 seed is 18%. How much does that fall when it's two years in a row? At best we are looking at a 9% chance, right? It's probably much less than that in all actuality. So again, in conclusion, if someone makes two accurate predictions, based on let's say a 5% probability (and 9% at best), FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON; yes, I would be interested.

Facts on Seeds Winning Tournament Games & National Championship Odds

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

But if the same reasoning is applied, WSU shouldn't have made the Sweet 16 in 2013, but they did. You're just cherry picking the games that work for you.

If teams that play crappy conferences aren't adequately prepared to make a Final Four, WSU wouldn't have done it in 2013.

As has already been pointed out, GU and WSU weren't the first teams from small conferences to get 1 seeds and to make the Final Four. Yes, you may have correctly predicted GU and WSU ahead of time, you act as if you've cracked some magical code to figure it out. But you haven't. It's just cherry picked data.

Would I be interested if somebody correctly predicted a couple of games based on a specific theory? Well, if I can retroactively go back and see the theory doesn't hold water, no, I'm not interested.

 

[CatsTopPac]

But if the same reasoning is applied, WSU shouldn't have made the Sweet 16 in 2013, but they did. You're just cherry picking the games that work for you.

If teams that play crappy conferences aren't adequately prepared to make a Final Four, WSU wouldn't have done it in 2013.

As has already been pointed out, GU and WSU weren't the first teams from small conferences to get 1 seeds and to make the Final Four. Yes, you may have correctly predicted GU and WSU ahead of time, you act as if you've cracked some magical code to figure it out. But you haven't. It's just cherry picked data.

Would I be interested if somebody correctly predicted a couple of games based on a specific theory? Well, if I can retroactively go back and see the theory doesn't hold water, no, I'm not interested.

Again, I think there is a difference between a Cinderella from a weak conference making the FF, and a #1 seed from a weak conference making the Final Four. In one instance, the Cinderella has caught everyone off guard, played good basketball, and reached the Final Four. That is different from a team being from a weak conference, not catching anyone off guard, and failing to get out of the first round, because everyone is well aware of the target on a #1 seed's back. As far as those teams not being the first ones from weak conferences, I am not saying that every team that is not from a power conference who has a #1 seed should lose. I have already pointed out that the teams like Memphis and St Joes actually had a respectable conference SOS. Had it been SDSU in 2013 (a midmajor), their conference SOS would have been respectable. Just because they are not a power conference, does not mean that they didn't face decent competition to prepare them for March. Conference USA, the MWC, the A10, are all conferences that have plenty of teams on any given night that can win, and you have to show up against them, even if they are not a ranked or tourney team. But how many teams in the WCC can beat GU on any given night, really. They are just waltzing into small gyms against weak teams, and beating them. That won't help you as a #1 seed when very good teams are trying to play their best game of the year against you.

But when you combine the facts that both WSU and GU were in fact #1 seeds (and not catching anyone off guard), played very weak conference schedules (that didn't get them ready to compete against teams that are trying to knock off that #1 seed), then that provides me with a basis to predict that they will not do well in March.

You said yourself that we agree that a very weak conference schedule doesn't get a team ready for March. At that point, if someone were to use the examples of George Mason, VCU, and WSU, what would your reply be? Would you just abandon that train of thought because those Cinderellas made it, and completely change your mind? Obviously not, because they have made it, and you still agreed that weak conference schedules don't prepare you as well for March. I think when you get a #1 seed, you are no longer a Cinderella. Having a #1 seed when you play a horrible conference SOS does not get you ready to really compete in your bracket as a #1 seed. Not just being a mid major, but playing an especially horrible conference schedule.

And no where did I say that I cracked some magical code. I said that if someone had predicted that two #1 seed would lose in back to back years in the first round because of the same reason, I would be interested in having a discussion about it. I wouldn't just buy it hook line and sinker, but I also wouldn't just immediately dismiss it, and tell him he was full of shit.

I'm not cherry picking data. I'm saying that when your conference SOS is terrible, then it doesn't prepare you well for March, as a #1 seed, when everyone you play is focusing on beating the best seed in the bracket. You already agree with me that playing a fucking atrocious conference schedule doesn't get you ready for March, right? I'm just saying that when you are a #1 seed who has played such a bad conference schedule that you are much less prepared to face March competition, then it's not conducive against teams that are all trying to beat a #1 seed.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. It's not just the fact that a #1 seed has lost in the first weekend. Many have done so before. It's not just the fact that a midmajor is a #1 seed. Those have happened before. It's not the fact that it's just that a team from a weak conference has made it to the FF. They have. It's the combination of those factors that told me, before the tourney even started, that a team that had the #1 seed, and played a remarkably weak conference schedule would not be ready for the pressure and competition of teams that were going after the #1 seed in their bracket.

I'm not saying that you need to just believe agree with what I'm saying. I don't care. I'm just saying that I wanted to have a discussion about it, because I noticed something, that to me is alarming. If you don't agree, that's fine. I just don't think that it's worth automatically dismissing as me just talking shit, or hating mid majors, or whatever else I have been accused of.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

I said playing a bad conference schedule doesn't prepare you for tournament play as well as playing a tough conference schedule. I never said playing a bad conference schedule doesn't prepare you at all. That's your position, not mine.

I stated my position previously pretty plainly and asked if you agreed. It looks like you don't.

That said, teams like VCU and George Mason hold up quite well to my position.

I also disagree that everyone in March is focused on beating the #1 seeds. I think everyone in March is focused on beating whoever the hell they're playing, regardless of what seed they are. I can't think of a single team that phoned it in because the competition wasn't a #1 seed. Ask any coach and they'll tell you that you can't take any teams lightly in March.

And I don't care what the results are (and lets be very clear, your two examples are not statistically significant) if I recognize the premise/methodology are flawed, then I will immediately dismiss the results. If a guy tells me he picked a perfect bracket those are impressive results, but if he tells me he did it by flipping a coin, I will dismiss his results immediately.

I don't agree with pretty much any of the premises you've set forth thus far so it's quite easy to dismiss your conclusions.

Even if I did buy into your premises and I did agree with your conclusions, I still wouldn't find it "alarming." As stated by several people already, tournament seeds are earned in the regular season. No amount of tournament success or failure will invalidate how worthy a team was for seeding.

It would appear that pretty much everyone agrees what GU earned their #1 seed. It would appear that pretty much everyone agrees that WSU earned their #1 seed. So what it sounds like now is you're just harping about the possibility that GU might get a #1 seed and they might not go as far as you think a #1 seed should go in the tournament.

You call it prognosticating, I call it whining. Whatever you call it, it comes of as sour grapes over something that hasn't even happened.

If you want a discussion, you should be prepared for dissenting opinions. If you don't want dissenting opinions, don't put it up for discussion.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Trolly, I don't even know where to go with this anymore. Your ability to discuss points is problematic to me. All you do is pull a piece of information I write, and take it to the absolute extreme, far beyond my intent, to try and discredit my point. You have done it this entire thread. A perfect example is your analysis of what I meant by teams playing #1 seeds. You take it to the extreme by saying that you can't think of a single team that phoned it in because the competition wasn't a #1 seed. Are you kidding me? What kind of point are you trying to make? Of course I don't think that a whole team sits in the locker room before a round in the tourney and says "well guys, this team is not a #1 seed, so we're not going to go over film or practice. We're just going to go out there and stomp them out." Why do you just take what I say to such an extreme like that? Of course I don't think that happens. That has nothing to do with what I'm trying to convey.

My point is that despite the fact that it's March, teams still look past foes. It happens. It's not crazy for 18-22 year old kids to overlook an opponent, in March or otherwise. Do you really think that every loss in March is to a team that was just straight up better? Of course not. It's March. And just because I say that a team wants it more, doesn't mean that the better team just doesn't give a shit. And when a #15 seed is chomping at the bit to beat a #2 seed, it doesn't mean that the #2 seed called the game because they didn't play a #1 seed, and it doesn't mean that the #15 seed is the better team. Many times it's because the lower seeded team played out of their minds because they wanted to win more. It also means that the better team might have not recognized that they team they were playing could very well beat them if they didn't go out there and play like it's lose and go home.

Finally, I get that the seeds are based on the reg season. But that still doesn't mean that the #1 seeds are not the favorites in the majority of cases to win the bracket. I get that in 2013 GU was ranked #1 and got a #1 seed. I understand why they had both the top seed and ranking. I just don't agree that they were a top four team, nor should they have been a #1 seed. I think that they got the #1 ranking just because they played much weaker competition, didn't lose, rose through the rankings because of it, and by the measurements were a top team because they did well before January, and rolled everyone after. But that to me doesn't define a #1 team, nor as a result, a #1 seed. I felt the same way about WSU last year. I think that playing in the MVC hurt their ability to do well in March. No, I don't think that it didn't prepare them whatsoever. Again, you are taking what I'm saying to an absolute extreme. I said I don't think it got them near as ready as teams who played conference schedules that were more difficult. They still played basketball from Jan to March. It's not like they just took the time off. But playing teams that are so bad week in and week out doesn't prepare teams for March as much as playing much stiffer competition.

Again, you don't have to agree. We can have a discussion and disagree. Just because I put forth a topic for discussion does not mean that you have to agree. Yet another instance where you are just picking out a statement and running to the very end of its possible interpretation and stating thats what I meant.

Last year when I brought this up, some people actually agreed. Others disagreed and we discussed it, and they still didn't agree. But a discussion is not pulling most of what I say outside the frame of logic, and then saying my position has no logic.

Going back to last year's discussion on another thread, there were numerous people who agreed that WSU played a very weak schedule after December, and that their undefeated record didn't necessarily mean that they were a legit #1 seed. I get it, when a team is undefeated after 33 games or whatever, they are going to get a #1 seed. I just don't think that when it happens in the MVC last year, that it's actually reflective of how good that team actually is, that was the basis for their seeding. I thought it would play out in March when they played competition they hadn't seen in months, and as a #1 seed where teams are more likely to get pumped to knock off the top seed, not overlook the opponent, and ultimately beat them.

There are aspects of your posts that have been discussionary. But then you just take something and run as far down crazy lane as you can, and it's not what I mean at all. Nor do I even say it to be interpreted as such. You very much seem to argue just to argue. If you just take what I said as a whole, it's not crazy. Bottom line is that there are a few factors that I based my predictions on in conjunction with each other; not separately, not absolutely in every case ever in the history of every game that has ever been played.

1)When a team plays a very weak conference schedule, they are less prepared to play top competition week in and week out in March with only a day in between rounds during a week.

2) When that team is a #1 seed, they are far, far less likely to be overlooked or underestimated. There is no possibility of them being a Cinderella. Players that might have an ego that they are going to win a game before it's played, do not feel the same way when they play a #1 seed. Chances are, it's the most focused basketball they will play.

3) The combination of the two has led me the past two seasons (this year being the third) to think that the #1 seed that fits both descriptions (GU two years ago and this year, and WSU last year) is not one of the four best teams, and is going to underperform in March.

I am not claiming to be Nostradamus. I am simply saying that during each of the last three seasons I have not been impressed with those two #1 seeds, and felt that they were not one of the four best teams, and that they would lose uncharacteristically early compared to what normal expectations are of a top four team or a #1 seed. I'm not going to take every element of my point to every extreme for you just to completely encapsulate every possibility of it happening or not happening. I'm just saying that I have been paying attention to something that is common among both seasons (this being the third) that is unusual and yet clear to me after being a fan of CBB and having watched basketball for the last 25 years. I am not trying to present an absolute airtight case. It is certainly up for discussion and dissenting opinion. I don't feel that your critiques are realistic. You are trying to pin me in a corner of absolutes that I am not premising my argument upon. That, to me, is not a discussion, those are a bunch of marginalized extremes that are not part of my point. If all you are going to do is continue to just reach as far as you can until the point breaks down, then I'm done. What you are doing is not just having a discussion. I understand presenting an exception to the rule. That's fine, but when all you offer is dramatic exceptions, then you are ignoring the very basic premise of my point. Those three points are listed above. I'm not going to continue going around in circles with every possibility. I know where you stand. Even if you won't take my argument in its basic form, I trust that you understand my argument. If you don't agree, that's fine. Are you done, or are there more extreme points that you want to try to discount my argument just because there are not 360 degrees of closed borders to my argument?

But bringing up WSU in 2013, or Memphis in 2008, or Pitt in 2010, etc. has not countered my argument. They either weren't a #1 seed, or they didn't play near the horrible conference SOS, etc. Trying to take pick one point and running with it instead of putting it into the combination of factors I outline is not accurate. Taking it to statistical probability, or overall SOS, or saying that I hate midmajors, or teams giving up because they are not playing #1 seed have nothing to do with my argument. If you want to stick with my main argument, then we can continue, but again, among you posts based on extremes, I have still gathered your view, and that you don't agree. That's fine. But I'm not going to keep going with this if you are just going to try and focus on the absolute edge of every aspect of this.

The last three years I have seen that GU, WSU, and GU (respectively) have played too weak of conference schedules to establish them as a top team to me, which warranted their seeding, which failed to prepare them enough for the increased quality of competition that they faced in March, and I predicted that they would lose, and they did. I feel that this year for GU is shaping up to be the same. I wanted to see if anyone sees what I see and discuss it. If you want to discuss that, we can. That's it. If you want to keep going on trying to pull me into all of the minutia, I'm done.

Final example of what I'm talking about: MI said that he sees the point about the weak scheduling but that GU is older and experienced and he thinks they will be fine. Great point. He doesn't agree. We discussed it. We moved on. This is not near as big of a deal as you are trying to make it. I am not claiming that in every tourney ever that every team that is a #1 seed that is not above at least a 74 conference SOS, having played at least 4 tourney teams after January 5th will absolutely lose before the EE and under no circumstances is ever allowed to be a #1 seed for the rest of history. I'm saying from what I've seen, I felt that WSU and GU would underperform as #1 seeds based on their weak conference schedule for the last two years, and that it looks like it is setting up to happen again. Period.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

I'm saying that when your conference SOS is terrible, then it doesn't prepare you well for March, as a #1 seed, when everyone you play is focusing on beating the best seed in the bracket.

Your words, not mine.

Myself and several others have pointed out why you've based your assertions on flawed premises. We've given examples to illustrate why the premises are flawed. Every time we do, you find another ridiculous straw to grasp.

You ask questions, and I answer them. If you don't want the answers don't ask the questions.

I find the whole thing pretty silly, but make no mistake... as long as you're willing to keep inventing terrible rationalizations to try and justify your bias, I'll keep explaining why they are terrible. I'm dedicated to my craft.

If you think you're eventually going to change my mind, I think we're past that point. If you don't think you're going to change my mind, I'm a little puzzled why you continue to create more and more creative defenses for your position.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Final example of what I'm talking about: MI said that he sees the point about the weak scheduling but that GU is older and experienced and he thinks they will be fine. Great point. He doesn't agree. We discussed it. We moved on.

MI pretty much agreed with you on every point. He didn't say GU would basically be fine, you didn't respond to any of his posts, so no shit you moved on. I can assure you if you didn't reply to any of my posts, we would have both moved on too.

I'm really intrigued as to how you thought this thread was going to go.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Sorry, that was podox.

I honestly thought more people would agree, like they did last year. Not alot, but I also wondered if there were any people who had maybe didn't agree last year, but after seeing it happen again, might question it. And, I like to talk myself out of things, prove myself wrong. I was wondering if anyone had any good points; things I didn't consider such as the age of the players on GU, or what type of teams could give them trouble, or what kinds of teams they'd run through, all based on matchups. I expected some people to adamantly disagree, but I didn't expect to spend 90% of the thread not doing any of that. I thought people would be talking about general and specific matchups, along with location as a West #1 seed. That would actually really help them get out of the first weekend. The first couple are in Portland. Those are essentally home games. Fuck, that's a big hit from them falling quick.

Who are potential 8 and 9 seed kind of teams that GU could face? Out of those teams, who's having more trouble on the road this year and who's not. Who are people's Sweet 16 teams that GU could face, Utah? The regional final is in LA, who show's more, GU fans of Utah fans? Shit Utah just lost to UCLA tonight, maybe it's not Utah they face, but like a Kansas.

I'd like to talk about any and all of that shit.

 

[CatsTopPac]

*podsox

My bad, no disrespect.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Sorry, that was podox.

I honestly thought more people would agree, like they did last year. Not alot, but I also wondered if there were any people who had maybe didn't agree last year, but after seeing it happen again, might question it. And, I like to talk myself out of things, prove myself wrong. I was wondering if anyone had any good points; things I didn't consider such as the age of the players on GU, or what type of teams could give them trouble, or what kinds of teams they'd run through, all based on matchups. I expected some people to adamantly disagree, but I didn't expect to spend 90% of the thread not doing any of that. I thought people would be talking about general and specific matchups, along with location as a West #1 seed. That would actually really help them get out of the first weekend. The first couple are in Portland. Those are essentally home games. Fuck, that's a big hit from them falling quick.

Who are potential 8 and 9 seed kind of teams that GU could face? Out of those teams, who's having more trouble on the road this year and who's not. Who are people's Sweet 16 teams that GU could face, Utah? The regional final is in LA, who show's more, GU fans of Utah fans? Shit Utah just lost to UCLA tonight, maybe it's not Utah they face, but like a Kansas.

I'd like to talk about any and all of that shit.

Yes, all of those things too. All of those things are reasons why your premise is pants-on-head retarded. Let's move on.

(Oh and most of that has already been mentioned so....)