Unverified Voracity Brings Back Dumb Punts

Submitted by Brian on October 16th, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Sponsor note. I get a lot of emails from lawyers and guys with three letter acronym jobs, because it's the internet, where lawyers and blankEOs are everywhere. I assume some of you are big ballers. This Is Michigan, after all, the kind of school that spits out big ballers left and right, often from Ross. If you're one of those people who instantly zips to the end of any paragraph about ticket prices because it's just not relevant, I may have a watch for you.


I got lunch with Shashi Mara to talk about an advertising relationship and was impressed with the risk he was taking. He dumped a nice job for a pair of crampons he wandered around Switzerland in, finding wizened old men with amazing dexterity and inch-thick glasses to create an exclusive line of officially-licensed watches. He did this with absolutely no idea how it would work out, and still doesn't, but he was clearly thrilled just to have the things he'd set out to make. His attention to detail resonated with me, as did his desire to create something of his own.

If you're a big baller who has gravitated here, you may appreciate the similarities between what this place offers and the ethos behind MaraWatch. If you're at the point where you've rarely got opportunities to turn a number in a bank account into something you love, something you might get excited about handing down to the next generation in your family, a mutual accord to transfer numbers and goods awaits you at MaraWatch. Visit the site, email, or call (617-833-3819) to lock down one of just 50 pieces in this year's collection. You'll have to beat everyone to #16.

Bring it back man. MVictors scored some pictures from the old locker rooms painted by local artist Jil Gordon:


You can feel the Bo emanating from the walls.This one is from the hockey locker room:


Also, hello, I am six years old in a library.

Patrick Omameh a nice guy. He was one of 11 players on this year's Good Works team:

"I was in the room, and it was my first time meeting the kid," Kovacs said. "And then Patrick walks in. It's this kid's 13th birthday. And as soon as Pat walks in, this kid's face just lights up.

"It's just unreal, the spark in the room. It was a special moment."

Click through for awwww picture.

MSU injury checkup. Dion Sims is still not on the MSU depth chart, which generally means he won't play. I don't think we'll know until MSU's first offensive snap what his real status is; it seems doubtful he can return from what seems like a high ankle sprain in two weeks. In lieu of Sims MSU went with a lot of three-wide I-form against Iowa, FWIW.

Also, MSU starting safety Jarius Jones didn't dress against the Hawkeyes; guard Blake Treadwell only saw a snap when Chris McDonald's helmet popped off. Either could be available this week.  Jones is listed as Lewis's backup; Treadwell is behind Jack Allen at LG.

Michigan is fully healthy save Countess and a couple backup DL, knock on wood.

Nebraskethockey. Corn Nation discusses the possibility of a Cornpack hockey team after an AP writer suggested it was going to happen:

After hearing Eichorst give nod to Mark Johnson, I predict#Huskers will play B1G hockey within next 6-8 years

Opinions are split down the middle. The situation at Nebraska is fairly attractive, though.  Lincoln already has the USHL's Stars, who lead that league in attendance with a respectable 3,900 fans a game. They'd have a natural in-state rival in UNO, would get to join the Big Ten, are in the heart of USHL country, and could use the Stars' rink. A major gift has already been made for a couple of rinks near campus, and while those are not D-I ready a push from the athletic department could alter the course of that development. A new downtown arena has put in piping for ice facilities, as well.

If the Huskers became competitive—and if UNO can do it there's no reason UNL can't—they'd be an attendance success, I'm betting. We'll see what Eichorst wants to do—if he can find the money (and everyone has ALL THE MONEY these days) I bet he goes for it.

Lewan rising. Plz no leave think of the Jake Long?

Taylor Lewan*/T/Michigan: Lewan is the first of three offensive linemen rising up draft boards and an underclassman who continues to impress scouts. He looked outstanding in all areas against the athletic Illinois defense. His skills in pass protection were outstanding as Lewan had no problem controlling defensive ends or oncoming blitzers. Watching the big left tackle easily move down the field blocking in motion was especially impressive. There's a very good chance Lewan will be the first offensive tackle selected if he enters the 2013 NFL Draft.

Ah yup.

Levert right now? Rothstein on Caris Levert:

4. Expect at least one surprise

With this much talent on the roster, there is bound to be a surprise one way or another. So in that vein, pay attention in exhibition games to freshman Caris LeVert. His teammates raved about him during media day, and it did not sound like empty hype. Instead, it has been a consistent theme throughout the summer -- Michigan's final piece to its five-man recruiting class has a chance to be really, really good. He has already put weight on his thin frame since arriving at Michigan and while he might not make an immediate impact, he could be a surprise for the Wolverines sooner than later.

Zack Novak followed that up with a tweet: "I'll go ahead and ruin the surprise on 4. The kid can play." Michigan did essentially dump a ready-to-commit Amadeo Della Valle for Levert, and ADV ended up at OSU so they weren't tossing a scrub aside. Levert also won an Ohio player of the year award with a pretty nice track record:

JJHuddle Players of the Year
2012: Caris Levert, Pickerington Central (Ohio)
2011: Trey Burke, Northland (Michigan)
2010: Jared Sullinger, Northland (Ohio State)
2009: Jared Sullinger, Northland (Ohio State)
2008: William Buford, Toledo Libbey (Ohio State) & B.J. Mullens, Canal Winchester (Ohio State/Charlotte Bobcats)
2007: Jon Diebler, Upper Sandusky (Ohio State)

I'll take two, thanks.

Dumb punt of the week. BONUS: I reminded the Mathlete of the Dumb Punt of the Week, which I missed dearly, and he promised to revive it. Last week's—as in games on the sixth:

Midway through the first quarter Akron faced a daunting 4th and 3 from the Bowling Green 32 and elected to punt the ball away.

Special note goes to Randy Edsall who punted from the 48 on 4th and 2 trailing by 1 in the 4th quarter. They later went on to score and go up 5 with about 5 minutes left and then kicked the extra point, to protect against two Wake Forest field goals in the final 5 minutes. Of course Maryland missed the PAT.

These make me feel wonderful about Brady Hoke.

inigomontoya.jpg. Fuggin' Walverines:

In Ann Arbor now, f'ing hate these &$¥+&&. Such arrogant snobs

A-maize-ing. Every idiot is wearing their colors today and the nurses and docs that know I'm a huge MSU alum/fan are all consoling me over the weekends games.... They're all like. ... Well this weeks game will be close.... Blah blah blah... We're not that good.... Maxwell is the next Cousins...... Illinois is horrible.... Blah blah blah

The nerve.

[After the JUMP: Josh Furman's gonna kill that poor woman, Walter.]

Via Ace:


Etc.: Offensive checkup at the halfway point. Michigan's big round number wins. The stadium late at night. No one is sexing on the 50. 2001 outrage recapped. We Are ND vs OU Anthem: fight. Slippery Rock explained.



October 16th, 2012 at 10:25 PM ^

but you don't get it.

For many, it may be about ego. For many others, it's an appreciation of the art. Like a beautiful car. Functional, useful and practical in design.

I don't have a tattoo and don't want one, but can appreciate the artistic value in them. I might suggest not looking at these only as a means to tell time.


October 16th, 2012 at 6:00 PM ^

People get all up about nice watches, but compared to what so many people spend money on, it's really not a bad investment. 

People will spend 30k on a car, when a 20k car will do just fine.  That's 10k (plus financing) on an item that you'll have for around 5 years.  So for whatever luxury that 30k car has that the 20k car doesn't have, you're paying 2000 bucks per year.  And that's not if you're buying a real luxury car, that's like a decked out Camry or Passat.

How much do you spend for your vacation every year?  How about tickets to sporting events, Michigan or otherwise?  Pretty easy to rack up a grand or two in a year that way. 

Compare that to spending $1,500 on a watch.  It's a very nice addition to your wardrobe that will last you almost forever.  Many men keep nice watches for much of their lives.  And you know it's not just about telling time, just like a car isn't just about transportation, a house isn't just about shelter and suit isn't just about covering your body.  People like nice things, and watches are a very common one for men.



October 16th, 2012 at 6:28 PM ^

Yup.  I've watched enough Suze Orman to know that if someone has 10 bucks in their pocket, they're going to spend all of it, and then go into debt another 90 bucks in order to buy some random useless thing that they're temporarily infatuated with. 

I think Robert Kiyosaki says it best when describing the different classes.  The poor basically work in order to cover their expenses.  The middle class work in order to buy liabilities.  The rich buy assets and let the assets work for them.

His argument is that assets produce net income; whereas liabilities produce net expenses.  Therefore, even though you think of your fancy car or huge house as an asset, it really should be seen as a liability since it increases your expenses.  On the other hand, an asset is something like a rental property, stocks, bonds or CD's that actually produce income.  

It's a simple concept, but it really makes you think differently about someone who is so proud of a new car that they can't possibly afford or a house that's too big for their family. 


October 16th, 2012 at 8:18 PM ^

Man, I hate to raise a minor quibble with this, it's just that your car analogy is a bit off. You're ignoring residual values and thus true cost to own. Luxury (BMW/Audi/Benz/Lexus) tend to have higher 5 year residuals (~50%) vs Ford/GM/Chrysler (~30%) 

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735004574570194202741528.html

To make a comparison, a 2013 Ford Fusion SE 1.6L Turbo, FWD, Manual Trans is $25,290 on the Ford website, before any rebates, etc.

A 2013 BMW 328i 2.0L Turbo, RWD, Manual Trans is $36,200 on the BWM website, before any rebates, etc.

I didn't add any options to either vehicle. These are manual base models.

Going with the residuals above, and presuming no rebates on either (not entirely realistic, so let's pretend these are both cash purchases at MSRP, and scenario 2 where we knock $3k off the Ford for a typical rebate/incentive)

Fusion 1: [$25,290 * (1-.30)] / 5 = $17,700 / 5 = $3,540 / year

Fusion 2: [$22,290 * (1-.30)] / 5 = $15,600 / 5 = $3,120 / year

BMW:       [$36,200 * (1-.50)] / 5 = $18,100 / 5 = $3,620 / year

Both cars claim 34mpg highway, so negating gas costs,(also ignoring insurance, though it's likely the BMW has a slightly higher premium) the BMW would only be $80 / year more to own over 5 years than the Fusion at MSRP, and $500 / year more than the Fusion with a 10% discount and 0% discount on the BMW. BMW also is 3yr/50k miles of free service (oil, windshield wipers, everything except tires). There's more variables we could discuss, etc, but the point is that I could make a case that a luxury care with a $11k higher price tag is actually both better (subjective) and cheaper (objective).


TL;DR - My post is wholly unnecessary but it's important to note that while cars are not assets, just because one has a higher sticker doesn't mean it's necessarily more expensive to own. Also, I like watches.


October 16th, 2012 at 10:32 PM ^

for whom dropping a few hundred bucks on dinner or a watch is about the same as the average joe giving buying a pack of gum.

Same with cars; the difference in price is meaningless and residual value is an afterthought. Not to take away from your point, which is well taken, just sayin...


October 16th, 2012 at 10:45 PM ^

People with 'f*** you money' yeah, they can do that. My point was more directed at WolvINLA asking why people buy a $30k car when a $20k car is 'sufficient'. I think it's important to note that appearances are a bit deceiving sometimes just on the sticker.

TL;DR - If your kid ever asks "Why do I have to learn math, when am I going to use this again?" The answer is "Every damn day."


October 16th, 2012 at 11:03 PM ^

The BMW will cost more to maintain once the free service is out.    Pretty sure most BMW models require premium fuel and synthetic oil, too.

BMW and other high end vehicle brands started offering free oil changes for the firs few years because people were leasing them for 2 years and not doing any maintenance on them; i.e., they really couldn't afford to own the car and couldn't afford the oil changes, either.



October 17th, 2012 at 12:24 AM ^

What you're saying is true, but it's merely a result of the timing of the depreciation.

Say for example that I use your same numbers for Fusion1 and BMW. 

Instead of buying it new, let's say I'm in the market for a 5-year old used car that I plan on using for another 5 years (and I will junk it after the car is ten years old with no remaining value).

5-yr old Fusion 1 = $7,587 (which is equal to 30% of the original MSRP of $25,290) / $1,517 per year.

5-yr old BMW = $18,100 (which is equal to 50% of the original MSRP of $36,200) / $3,620 per year.

As you can see, buying the used BMW will cost more than twice the cost of buying the used Fusion 1.  $3,620 vs. $1,517 per year respectively. 


October 17th, 2012 at 12:47 AM ^

Except that 10 year old BMW, in this case a 2002-2003 325i/330i still has a $7k-$12k value, so why are you junking it? Not sure why you're zeroing out the car's value after 10 years.

http://tinyurl.com/9u3tm3l  (link to autotrader)

Obviously, I'm not trying to make a case that luxury cars are always cheaper or anything. My point was that, in response to saying "why buy a $30k car when a $20k car is the same" (provided you agree with the premise, I don't), that with minimal effort I found you could drive a BMW sedan for roughly the same as a Ford sedan under some circumstances, if you do math and consider the purchase. That was the point I was trying to make.

TL;DR - Distorting numbers isn't really fair duder.


October 16th, 2012 at 8:52 PM ^

When getting a car I could have gotten all the extras but then why not just get a better car that's not tricked out?

Maybe guys who spend $1,500 on a watch plan on keeping it their whole lives. I'm guessing those that are spending $10k aren't, because they'll be "out of style", and can't be caught wearing them. Just like a guy isn't going to buy a Lamborghini and plan on keeping it for 20 years, because a 20 year old sports car isn't cool, unless it's a collection of classics. Likewise they may kep that watch, but it'll be one of many.

And in the end, it's just a watch. What watch has ever been as much fun as a vacation or Michigan games? There's blogs talking about our Michigan Football experiences. Watch blog chat? Not so much. "Hey, like my watch? Yeah, nice. Sooooo...."


October 16th, 2012 at 11:28 PM ^

who buy both expensive cars and expensive watches. They aren't trying to impress. They like those things and it brings them joy.

People would say I'm crazy for spending so much money on Michigan sports. They don't think there is much value when I can watch it for free on TV. And maybe they're right that there isn't a great deal of "value". But I value things differently and monetary splurges aren't always practical, rational or logical.


October 17th, 2012 at 7:11 AM ^

No doubt about it. Others buy for other reasons. I don't know the demographics of the buyers or watches/timepieces in general to say which is the greater proportion. All I do know is that I had the same opinion as you in the past and then I met people who actively buy these kind of watches. They do not buy them for bling or ego. When they talk about watches, their eyes light up like when I talk about football or cars. And for things you care about "value" is relative.

Maybe you're right and most people getting these are impractical show-offs or egomaniacs. However, I know enough people with them to not assume that in general.


October 16th, 2012 at 3:04 PM ^

...these "timepieces" is the use of the term "bespoke". Anything that is produced using "bespoke" methods is well beyond the means of all but a sliver of the population. But if that's your thing, that's cool, man.

Assuming things continue going the way they're going for Lewan this year, he'll be in NYC on 25 April hearing his name called by the Commish and having a bunch of J-E-T-S fans boo the selection.


October 16th, 2012 at 3:11 PM ^

"Bespoke" just means custom-made.  Yes, custom-made requires more labor and it would be more expensive in America (since labor is expensive here), but it's not the case everywhere.

For example, for the same price of an off-the-rack suit in an American department store, you can get a bespoke suit in Hong Kong, which is tailored to match your exact size.  You pick the wool, color, cut, etc. and they throw in an extra pair of suit pants (since that usually wears out faster).

In general, the real reason why a small retailer would choose to sell bespoke products is because they don't want to get stuck carrying inventory of products that they have no clue will sell.


October 16th, 2012 at 3:25 PM ^

...bespoke in a third world country is less expensive than bespoke on Savile Row. Thousands of sailors assigned to Bahrain who have bought their suits in the souk there understand this.

In general, bespoke means more than having something custom tailored. It means having something custom tailored to the highest standards using the best materials and the most experienced hands. Hence, tremendously high prices.


October 16th, 2012 at 3:09 PM ^

does that watch remind anyone else of the kind they used to advertise in airline magazines, place "your corporate logo" on the face? Not taken with it, myself. 

Reno Drew

October 16th, 2012 at 3:40 PM ^

I'm just thinking with the limited editions (50 for the Game Changer, 12 for the Rain Maker, and 8 for the Risk Taker) the prices are going to get incredibly inflated.  Market forces at work- good ol' supply and demand.  


BTW- Rain Maker?  They couldn't come up with something better than that?   Sounds like it's the watch for the graduate who is a regular high tipping customer at his local Gentlemen's night club.  Maybe more appropriate for a MSU wide reciever who has made it to the NFL.



October 16th, 2012 at 7:28 PM ^

So 50 total in any given year. As for "rain maker" that refers to the guy in the firn that brings in the heavy money. That watch is for some law firm or other company to reward their top earner who they know is a Michigan fan/alum. 


October 16th, 2012 at 3:43 PM ^

I read the title as "Unverified Voracity Brings Back Dumb Pants."  I was halfway through the thing before I realized there were no Michigan Zubaz pants.  And, yes, I owned a pair in junior high.



October 16th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^

with stainless steel and leather incorporated somehow and knocked a couple of zeroes off the price, he'd probably sell buckets of them. They wouldn't be bespoke, though.


October 16th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^

my theory is that he saw 15 stepping up and thought "if i hit 15 into the returner, its not really hitting the returner, maybe this will cause some chaos." then 15 totally matadors Furman, who flies into the returner. you can kind of see furman brace for the earlier hit and never get it. i can't believe he was trying to do what he did.