Never said it was a success-----Just answered the question asked: "Who won when it mattered". I guess that game in 2016 didn't matter b/c there were no expectations,since it was CLEAR that team was going nowhere....Thats cool..
But curious...............You say that game didn't matter because there were no expectations, it was clear team was going nowhere---right?
Cool. Did you have expectations in 2011,when UK was a 4-seed? What about in 2014 as an 8-seed? Did you enter the tournament in 2011 and 14 with expectations----high hopes? Just curious.
As much as I love to talk s*** to Indiana fans, I just can't. I mean, Kentucky lost to St.Peter's and went 9-21 the year before. And, Indiana won the last game that we've played in 2016 (and kicked us out of the tournament). They have also won the last regular season game. That said, you were a Freshman in HS when the Hoosiers won last Natty............and you're 50, and on paper, KY is definitely better than IU, but that's why they play.
I would say both teams won when it mattered in the tournament, but I was not extra upset when Kentucky lost to Indiana in 2016; I mean, we lost, and it did not matter who we lost to. Losing in 2012 would have sucked more, but only because that team had higher expectations, not because they lost to Indiana, but that's just me.
I don't care one way or the other on whether Kentucky and Indiana play; rivalry has gone by the wayside lately anyway. That said, I like the neutral courts (Louisville and Indianapolis) better than I do home and home. I guess that's how it was when I first started following UK sports, and I thought the atmosphere was much better playing neutral sites. What say you?