[BostonCard]

The issue is that you are talking about the probability of maximizing success on a specific play, with limited follow-on effects, not of optimizing the overall success of the game, which generally is going to go down if you do nothing but pass.  So yes, it is of course very important to both throw and pass over the course of the game, even though running plays are generally going to get you fewer yards per play than passing plays.

However, in this specific issue, we were facing second and four.  That is generally a favorable down, where you can run it and reasonably expect to get a first down, or hope you catch the defense cheating for the run and throw for a big play.  Given that our passing game was much more effective against Cal than our running game, it was a perfectly defensible choice.  Running it twice would have also been a perfectly defensible choice.  I haven't gone through the permutations based on the distribution of outcomes we had against Cal, but I suspect they wouldn't have strongly favored one approach over the other.

Moreover, the initial reason everyone cited for running the football was that it would have allowed us to run an additional 40 seconds off the game clock. But that would not have made a damned bit of difference, since Cal scored in 1 minute 7 seconds, which was more than enough time even if we had chosen to run twice.  Even running five consecutive times (getting a first down and then running every time in the next set of downs) would still probably have given Cal enough time to score since they would have used their three time outs, so they would have gotten the ball back with about 1 minute 30 and no time outs, which was still more time than they needed to score (though of course they would have blown some time after the sack, which is why I say "probably").

BC

[BostonCard]

The issue is that you are talking about the probability of maximizing success on a specific play, with limited follow-on effects, not of optimizing the overall success of the game, which generally is going to go down if you do nothing but pass.  So yes, it is of course very important to both throw and pass over the course of the game, even though running plays are generally going to get you fewer yards per play than passing plays.

However, in this specific issue, we were facing second and four.  That is generally a favorable down, where you can run it and reasonably expect to get a first down, or hope you catch the defense cheating for the run and throw for a big play.  Given that our passing game was much more effective against Cal than our running game, it was a perfectly defensible choice.  Running it twice would have also been a perfectly defensible choice.  I haven't gone through the permutations based on the distribution of outcomes we had against Cal, but I suspect they wouldn't have strongly favored one approach over the other.

Moreover, the initial reason everyone cited for running the football was that it would have allowed us to run an additional 40 seconds off the game clock. But that would not have made a damned bit of difference, since Cal scored in 1 minute 7 seconds, which was more than enough time even if we had chosen to run twice.  Even running five consecutive times (getting a first down and then running every time in the next set of downs) would still probably have given Cal enough time to score since they would have used their three time outs, so they would have gotten the ball back with about 1 minute 30 and no time outs, which was still more time than they needed to score (though of course they would have blown some time after the sack, which is why I say "probably").

BC