[Farm93]

Did anyone also wonder why UW was handing off to a RB who then dove into the line during their last possession? Taking a knee would be safer (no chance of a fumble). As it turned out, J. Dillon got injured (out for CFP championship against UM?) on a dive and the clock was stopped for the injury, giving UT the precious few seconds it needed to mount its almost successful comeback.

The take a knee approach would have meant a punt around 20 seconds and Texas getting posession with about 15 seconds. 

Running the ball should have created a similar outcome UNLESS the running attempts actually created a first down eliminating the risk of a punt, a punt return and/or 2-3 plays for Texas.   So there was a benefit to going for it...with some risks.

Going for the first down created a risk of injury for 2 or 3 rather simple plays (and the potential forced timeouts) and a fumble risk too.

The knee down approach would have guaranteed Texas got the ball.  Then the Washington defense would have had to endure 2 or 3 plays with corresponding injury potential for that much less talented group with less depth too.  There is actually another consideration now in college football, if Texas got the ball with 15 seconds left it was possible a defender could then get a dreaded targetting penalty and then miss the first half of the CFP.   Of course, Texas got the ball with even more time left thanks to the injury, so that targetting risk actually increased.  
  
In hindsight the choice was clear, but if the coach believed the RBs would not fumble then opting for trying for the final first down was POTENTIALLY a less risky choice.

Both paths had some risk but the coach opted to bet on his offense and the teams best players.  Given UW's DB weaknesses all season, it was not an unreasonable gamble IMHO.   UW was rather unlucky as banking on their O resulted in an injury for a key player and a created that additional time for Texas.  That's football.

[Farm93]

Did anyone also wonder why UW was handing off to a RB who then dove into the line during their last possession? Taking a knee would be safer (no chance of a fumble). As it turned out, J. Dillon got injured (out for CFP championship against UM?) on a dive and the clock was stopped for the injury, giving UT the precious few seconds it needed to mount its almost successful comeback.

The take a knee approach would have meant a punt around 20 seconds and Texas getting posession with about 15 seconds. 

Running the ball should have created a similar outcome UNLESS the running attempts actually created a first down eliminating the risk of a punt, a punt return and/or 2-3 plays for Texas.   So there was a benefit to going for it...with some risks.

Going for the first down created a risk of injury for 2 or 3 rather simple plays (and the potential forced timeouts) and a fumble risk too.

The knee down approach would have guaranteed Texas got the ball.  Then the Washington defense would have had to endure 2 or 3 plays with corresponding injury potential for that much less talented group with less depth too.  There is actually another consideration now in college football, if Texas got the ball with 15 seconds left it was possible a defender could then get a dreaded targetting penalty and then miss the first half of the CFP.   Of course, Texas got the ball with even more time left thanks to the injury, so that targetting risk actually increased.  
  
In hindsight the choice was clear, but if the coach believed the RBs would not fumble then opting for trying for the final first down was POTENTIALLY a less risky choice.

Both paths had some risk but the coach opted to bet on his offense and the teams best players.  Given UW's DB weaknesses all season, it was not an unreasonable gamble IMHO.   UW was rather unlucky as banking on their O resulted in an injury for a key player and a created that additional time for Texas.  That's football.