In which I examine crappy local sports journalism on a state-by-state basis, progressing through the states in terms of an alphabetical ordering of the heights of their tallest points. Because I can.
Great. Just great. I finally get home after weeks and weeks of writing this post on the road, and I'm stuck with a cold or something. So here comes another quickie post. Sorry about that.
Continuing Iowa's Hawkeye Point's theme of unbelievably obviously named highpoints, Indiana is proud to present 1257-foot Hoosier Hill. Here are three things I can't imagine it would hurt for you to know:
1. It's on private property, but the owner put a trail
2. Geologically, it's in part of Indiana that's already unusually high, so it's only about thirty or so feet higher than the surrounding countryside.
3. There's concern that a nearby landfill might end up being taller than Hoosier Hill, making a garbage mound the highest point in Indiana. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about Indiana, I don't know what will.
Look, I'm sick and I'm tired - not sick and tired, mind you, but still - and so I'm going to have to make this fast. And what better way to do it than to turn to Steve T. Gorches of The Post-Tribune of Northwest Indiana for some hot local bowling commentary?
If you're a sanctioned league bowler, then the season-opening league meeting brings up so many quips and quandaries.
That is so like my life that I don't live. Aw shit, I'm slipping into pseudo-profound bullshit. I'm fading fast here, peeps.
My league's meeting was last week and I learned one thing in particular: expect the unexpected.
That's true for many aspects of life in general, but in bowling it's especially true in league meetings when debate is healthy and reasoning is skewed.
I just love that he says that's true of "many aspects of life in general," just that the truthiness of that statement goes quadruple for bowling league meetings. It's like our entire lives are just some pale reflection of the glory that is a bowling league meeting. Also, I bet the beer tastes better there.
Oh yes, reasoning can be quite skewed, and this deduction doesn't come just from one recent meeting.
Phew. For a moment there I thought he might be working with a non-robust sample size.
Last week's encounter just enhanced my opinion built from years and years of shaking my head in preseason meetings.
Let's talk handicap.
Wait, he realizes him writing his column isn't him addressing a league meeting, right? Right!?
With averages rising over the last 15 years, it's understandable that the old standard of 80 percent of 200 has gone by the wayside. But that doesn't mean we have to keep raising it through the roof at the same rate of averages.
Oh goodness, that's only the first paragraph. Of four. ABOUT FUCKING HANDICAPS. And believe me, this is some scholarly, borderline impenetrable shit.
Then he's got even more to say about how many games before averages kick in, which I didn't even realize was a concept, let alone an issue. Seriously, is this how he communicates with his league? Does his league require all proposed rule changes be first aired in a column in The Post-Tribune? Because I'm having trouble understanding this any other way.
Eh, what the hell. I'm tired. I'm sick. Let's just enjoy some vintage thoughts on bloggers.