I think UT will be here as long as Barnes is coach, after that who knows.
Indiana/Kentucky: Its time to get this game back...
- Thread starter IUfanBorden
- Start date
Been saying this forever! We’ve seen other SEC teams have a good couple of year runs and their fans come screaming “New kings of the SEC” only to fall back to the bottom of the basement. Has UT been decent the last couple years? Yes! But Florida, Arkansas and a few other teams have done the same thing in the past and then disappeared into the mist! At least UF And Arkansas won a title or two!
As far as UK rivals go for me....
1. UL (No two teams/fans hate each other more)
2. IU (The 90’s games was that good, The two 2012 games)
3. Duke! (78, 92 and 98 games)
4. UT (boarder war)
5. KU (do I even have to say anything)
Not when you're considering relevance. Princeton has 11 CFB titles, Yale has 15 or 16 titles. Are they Blue bloods?
Last edited:
I think it was 1993....UK won 81-78. Of the 159 points scored in that game, 116 were scored by just for players:
Mashburn and Ford with 29
Cheaney and Nover with 29
Okie, doke...But, ummmm, those same historians are the ones who study, well, rivalries such as, UK/UT, etc, etc...But I get it. I think. Bama and UK have owned Tenn...Maybe you should pick another rival---Whats Vandy up to? Laughing
How about Indiana? We were able to kick y'all's ass as recently as Jan 2020.
We won recently, Check for me
We have only played twice (Vols winning both), but you don't care about number of games played, so check there.
Looks like we both have a new rival !SmokinSmile
Congrats on beating Indiana, by one----who's a perennial CFB doormat. Laughing Even then,it took a total implosion by IU for that to happen...
Wow----times must be rough in Rocky Top when you are boasting about beating Indiana in football..RollLaugh
I'm completely for a series on neutral courts again. IU's refusal and sticking to wanting home and home only makes me wonder what perks they want by playing at home....
I've heard rumors that Tenn is thought of as the new UL ....... that Fulmer is the new Jurich, anything goe$$$ .
There are W's and L's and that is all. It doesn't matter how much you beat them as long as they get their ass beat. I would think as an IU fan that lesson will already be drilled into you by now.
So, CFB rival you ready for the B1G schedule?
Alabama agree's with you..... Winking
I was looking forward to the season...Felt IU had a chance to be pretty good. Still could be. But only playing 9 games, with 4 of those being Michigan,Penn State, Wisconsin and Ohio State, kind of takes some shine off of things,.I guess the good news is, we get Michigan and PSU at home....
It just keeps growing.
Let's see how big it can get.
OMG it's about to explode.
Why is it that color?
Are you right handed?
So many...
Dang dude. RollLaugh That's not right. RollLaugh
Gotta admit; I never saw this thread being debated by a UT fan and UK fans.
I was thinking the same damn thing...I was like, "Well, shit.....got ya UT fan also...." SmokinSmileGotta admit; I never saw this thread being debated by a UT fan and UK fans.
The idea that UK needs IU on it's schedule is absolutely laughable.
Edit: Oh, and UT sucks.
If we need the game so much more than you guys, I don't understand why it is always the IU admin and fanbase crying about us not playing anymore and never the UK admin or fans?
SEC seems to be doing a better job getting UK ready for the post season that the BIG has done for IU (or any B1G team for that matter). I might have given this statement a pass if you played in a conference that had actually produced a champion in the last 20 years . Congrats on playing in a conference of 'almost good enough', I guess?
Edit: Oh, and UT sucks.
Oh, boy......First off, no from IU has brought up the series, unless asked....IU administration isn't calling UK, and asking to play...AS much as I am sure you;d like to think this---its simply not true.
What does not producing a champion have to do with how good a conference is?
LAMO at the SEC getting UK ready for the NCAAT. Naaaah, that would be Calipari. And well, all that talent getting better. It ain't got shit to do with a conference that's pretty much ran by two teams: UK and Florida. Though South Carolina did make that run in 2017 as a 7-seed. Big hasn't had a title winner since 2000---MSU. But they have had like 5 different teams play for a title since---Runner-up like 4 times...SEC has had UK/Florida.
BTW, why didn't that vicious SEC have UK ready for the Big 10 in 2015?SmokinSmile
Ahhh, you are smarter than this----Think my friend----THINK.
Oh, you mean year 15 of your conference still not winning shit? SmokinSmile
Hell, we can take it back to 1990 and your conference still only has 1 title. The "mighty" B1G. RollLaugh
Last edited:
difference between us and them is that UK continues to dominate 4 titles 10+ final fours etc etc since then.
I think I have been fairly consistent on stating recent games are what matter regarding rivalries. Historians write about the past. Sports writers write about the present and future.
so can we remove 50 of Tennessee's wins from back then? because everyone knows college basketball didn’t exist until 2015
Maybe, but more then likely UT will kick UK's ass and you'll pitch another fit on here.
You have and we all know why! It’s because UT’s been decent in that time frame. You give other fans with a rich history in basketball hell because their proud of their tradition but that’s because UT has no history. If UT had UK’s, UNc’s or Dukes history you would be just as proud as anyone else.
How does a rivalry even exist if there is no history? That seems counter to what rivalries actually are?
Kentucky and Tennessee have no rivalry other than we've played them more than anyone else and vice versa. So the history is there for the series and Kentucky, just not for Tennessee alone. They are usually pretty far down my list of must win games each year.
History is a relative term. The last game your team played is history. Recent history is more relevant to today than ancient history.
However, the most critical part of having a rival is playing games. It is very difficult to have a rival and never play them.
History matters. Always has always will.
So, if a team never plays a certain other team there's no rivalry? Can't disagree
History matters. Always has always will.
So, if a team never plays a certain other team there's no rivalry? Can't disagree
5 years and further back have no bearing on a team going into this season. It also has no bearing on the strength of the program in the present.
Why do you continue to use extremes? What if a team plays 3 times in 10 years, is that a rival?
Yes they were....We were atthe game when Bailey had 29, leading IU to a 96-84 win. I thought for sure UK would be us by 90....We were coming off a season opening loss to Butler.
One of favorite games was in 98(Dec). Horrendous 1st half by both---think UK led 22-17 at halftime...Second half was fun. Csts up by 9 with a little over a minute to go , before the Hoosiers stormed back. Sent the gme to OT on a Fife "3"---then stole the inbound pass, and damn near hit a 70 footer to win the game...UK dominated the OT---winning 70-61.
Similar threads
