Gonzaga and Wichita St.

[CatsTopPac]

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....)

Really, where has it been mentioned? What was the discussion? I guess the discussion would be warranted with at least an assumption that the premise is correct. All of what I mentioned above has nothing to do with questioning the premise. For instance, if the games were in San Antonio instead of Portland, that has nothing to do with the premise. I guess you can stand on the matchups as a retort to the premise, but again, that never happened.

In any event, I'd still like to know how the discussion went on GU in the tourney.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Really, where has it been mentioned? What was the discussion? I guess the discussion would be warranted with at least an assumption that the premise is correct. All of what I mentioned above has nothing to do with questioning the premise. For instance, if the games were in San Antonio instead of Portland, that has nothing to do with the premise. I guess you can stand on the matchups as a retort to the premise, but again, that never happened.

In any event, I'd still like to know how the discussion went on GU in the tourney.

Previous specific matchups have already been discussed. I'm not going to go cutting and pasting a bunch of quotes because you're too goddamn lazy to read your own thread. The experience of Gonzaga (1st cousin to "age" only 1000x more relevant) has already been brought up. The impact of playing in various locations, and the impact of how a team performs on the road have been brought up.

Nobody seems to have any interest in discussing future matchups probably for the same reason nobody wanted to do it in your last whiny-ass thread about WSU. WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE FUCKING MATCHUPS ARE GOING TO BE SO THERE IS NO FUCKING POINT IN GUESSING RIGHT NOW.

And questioning your stupid fucking premise has nothing to do with all of the other ancillary bullshit that you were hoping to talk about. Just because you wanted a discussion doesn't mean you get to dictate what is allowed and what isn't. Now that your stupid fucking premise has been rendered utterly fucking pointless by multiple people, you don't just get to ignore that and say "well I was hoping we can talk about how old Kyle Wiyltjzer is and how that impacts my theory" because your theory as it was doesn't exist anymore. You keep wanting to talk about a bunch of flat-earth bullshit despite the fact everyone else has already accepted that the earth isn't fucking flat. So if you want to try and defend your stupid fucking premise, feel free. But if you were hoping you could just ignore all the criticisms that have been laid out because it's inconvenient for your bullshit theory, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.

You were wondering if people might make some good points?!? People have made a fucking pile of good points and you continue to dismiss them because they don't fit into your stupid theory.

The good points have been made. They show your theory is full of fucking holes. If you have no good point with which to counter, it would appear the discussion is over.