Actually, I am objective. So, thanks for being observant.
My bad. See, being observant, I noticed that you often describe yourself as optimistic
"I'm one of the more optimistic guys on the board"
"I'm usually pretty optimistic"
"I'm one of those optimistic posters"
and since optimistic is just about as far from objective as you can get I assumed that you were being optimistic here as well. Whereas here you evidently stopped being optimistic and were instead being all like completely objective and stuff. Which is why I got confused. However I'm happy to stipulate that you were just being unrealistic before when you said you were among the most optimistic posters on the board and are instead all objective and whatnot when it suits you. So noted.
Per usual, "Google" is your best friend, as I seriously doubt you knew that was UK's first game of the season. By the way, UK still isn't flawless in their execution. They are very talented and deep, if you didn't know. Maybe, "Google" won't tell you such
Well yes, I did go look at the box score and in fact I often check things using the interwebs when I hear some nimrod make a preposterous statement. I say to myself, self, that can't be right and then I check what actually happened. Because I don't like to talk out my ass. Oh sure, I know it doesn't bother most posters, but I like to know facts and truth and stuff, because I don't like looking like a chowderhead. So in this case when I read the absurd statement that Marist had exposed UK's flaws by keeping things close in the first half I did in fact go look at the box score, which revealed that the first half in which Marist exposed UK was in fact the first organized half of basketball UK had played since last years final four and that they had gone on to win the game by 50 points, which tends to show that the first half of the Marist game didn't expose anything. Which googled facts rendered your vague impressions of the Marist game pretty much meaningless, which I helpfully pointed out.