This is true, you have to take the data, and apply it to your real world situation, with all necessary adjustments. I don't think anyone is actually arguing otherwise. But if you really don't think your offense is capable of moving the ball one or two yards a play against an opposing defense, you may as well just go ahead and punt on 1st down and hope your defense scores you some points I guess. FWIW our average yards per play against Purdue was 4.
Juiceman -- I've never said it wasn't reasonable to criticize BB for deciding to punt. (Nor have I stated what I would have preferred BB had done. ;0! ) I have made the case that his decision was -- reasonable.
Moreover, I have made the case that the decision making in football (like war) is both art and science (so to speak). One cannot simply "play the odds" (relying on statistical soothsayers), but must also take into account the situation, how the teams have played up to date, on whose side Ole' Mighty Mo (momentum) resides at that point in time, fatigue and health of your players, and other factors to wit the coaches alone may be privvy -- all contributing to both the art and science of their decision.
I engaged in this fun dialogue to take issue with your original assertion: "You have to play the odds, and the odds are clear that you have a better chance winning the game if you go for it." Those were your exact words. As I have tried to establish, weighing the odds (both tactically and strategically) is part of the assessment. But judgment involves more than mere odds. AND even the CORRECT decision is reliant on the Jimmies and Joes to execute the X's and O's! (Funny how players can make any decision great or lousy.)
Noting the Illini were averaging 4 yds per play is a reasonable data point. One would like to see that statistical analysis applied to 3rd downs, short yardage situations, and the possible handful of plays where it was likely McCray would be handed the ball. Of course, even if one compiles that data after-the-fact, it begs the question whether that information was specifically assessed in the 30-60 seconds BB had to make the decision (he took a TO, right?).
Likewise, another guy up above noted that Purdue's replacement QB had been much more effective moving the ball -- save for two consecutive turnovers -- and that BB should have assessed that the new QB would move Purdue right down the field as he did. Fair point -- peace. But, again, it is with the benefit of hindsight that this assessment was made. Now, if the commenter honestly threw his hands up and yelled at the TV screen at the time, because he was honestly concerned about the new QB, well then kudos to him -- his reasonable concern was well-founded.
But it still doesn't make BB's decision unreasonable under the circumstances. To say otherwise is, in effect, saying that BB cannot put faith in his defense to keep an opponent that has struggled to score from driving 95 yards for a touchdown with only 3 minutes to play. Better to roll the dice on a single play than to give yourself time and distance to preserve the victory (even if the opponent gets up to midfield in two plays--they were still 50 yards away.) I'm not so sure the odds were as skewed as you claim. Nevertheless, I find the appeal in your desire that he "go for it" rather than punt--regardless the odds. But then, I'm something of a gambler -- especially when my "skin" is not in the game.
Cheers! Go Illini!