[washingtonismoney]

maybe saying that's what losers do was harsh, but the last Stanford guy who always punted from inside the opponent's 35 was Wlat Idiotface, who to me was the embodiment of a loser.

Well, Shaw went for it the trip before and got stopped. Next time around he decides to reduce variance,* which is not the craziest thing to do up 18 and with a dominant defense. Facts, and knowing them: they tend to help.

* In general teams need to go for it more on 4th down. However people should recognize the role that variance plays. Often a choice that's best in an EV sense of maximizing points -- the usual math that justifies the 4th down decisions -- may increase variance. If you're Stanford, up 18 and with a dominant defense, the only way you lose is through crazy stuff happening. Going for it increases the "crazy stuff %age." On balance I'd probably go for it, but the decision is often not quite as obvious as people make it out to be, I think.

[washingtonismoney]

maybe saying that's what losers do was harsh, but the last Stanford guy who always punted from inside the opponent's 35 was Wlat Idiotface, who to me was the embodiment of a loser.

Well, Shaw went for it the trip before and got stopped. Next time around he decides to reduce variance,* which is not the craziest thing to do up 18 and with a dominant defense. Facts, and knowing them: they tend to help.

* In general teams need to go for it more on 4th down. However people should recognize the role that variance plays. Often a choice that's best in an EV sense of maximizing points -- the usual math that justifies the 4th down decisions -- may increase variance. If you're Stanford, up 18 and with a dominant defense, the only way you lose is through crazy stuff happening. Going for it increases the "crazy stuff %age." On balance I'd probably go for it, but the decision is often not quite as obvious as people make it out to be, I think.