[stupac2]

Obviously Shaw was thinking we had a better chance of stopping them on two plays rather than three.

There's no other reason, but I think 2nd and 20 (need 7ypp to convert) vs 3rd and 10 (need 5 ypp to convert) are sufficiently different that the somewhat reduced variance in only having two plays isn't worth it. I would've taken it.

... and why haven't we heard any complaints yet about punting from the Cal 36???

Clearly too long for a FG, especially with the rain, and IIRC we needed 7 yards or something. That was one of those "no good option" ones and at least the punt pinned them back.

My actual problem with that punt was the 3rd down play, I think that's a great place to try to get a few yards so you make the kick/conversion reasonable, but we did something like a bomb downfield. Kind of silly.

[stupac2]

Obviously Shaw was thinking we had a better chance of stopping them on two plays rather than three.

There's no other reason, but I think 2nd and 20 (need 7ypp to convert) vs 3rd and 10 (need 5 ypp to convert) are sufficiently different that the somewhat reduced variance in only having two plays isn't worth it. I would've taken it.

... and why haven't we heard any complaints yet about punting from the Cal 36???

Clearly too long for a FG, especially with the rain, and IIRC we needed 7 yards or something. That was one of those "no good option" ones and at least the punt pinned them back.

My actual problem with that punt was the 3rd down play, I think that's a great place to try to get a few yards so you make the kick/conversion reasonable, but we did something like a bomb downfield. Kind of silly.