The UK fanbase has been saddled in recent years with the tag of being "too harsh" and for having "unreal expectations." Many in the national media in particular seem flabbergasted by the way Big Blue Nation can see a win as a loss.

Ever wonder where that kind of attitude stems from? Look no further than the local "coverage" of the game.

Much-maligned beat writer Jerry Tipton (whom I profiled a year ago) from the Herald-Leader decided not only his lede graph, but his headline ("Cats struggle in win") would really get to the heart of a game in which the lineup changed, four starters scored most of the points and UK won by 15:

Now that's the way you tell it. Start with two negatives and work your way backwards! He goes on to focus on the attendance several more times. I'm surprised he wasn't able to work some mention in there about the hot dogs in the writer's pregame area being "too mushy" or something.

Seriously. What is the hope of covering the Wildcats, only to find all the things they didn't do right? The not-so-subtle jab at the attendance is clearly trying to imply that the program isn't jibing with the fans. If Tipton has something to say, maybe he should just say it instead of pretending he's objectively covering the team. Doesn't the LHL already have some "columnists" (if you can stomach them)?

Contrast Tipton's whine-fest with Brett Dawson's view from the Courier-Journal:

The story is now set. The basics passed along (attendance, minus the commentary, and score), Dawson gets into his topic via a quote from a player. Tipton, on the other hand, could have just as easily written his story without any comments from the player, since he established from line 1 what his tone and purpose in writing was.

Now tell me which of these writers has been inducted into the Basketball Writers Hall of Fame? (Hint: it's not the good one.)