See this is where the analytics get screwy and allow everyone to cherry pick.
Let's take those five games where Nebraska threw more than 40 times and lost each time:
BYU
41 passes for 319 yards
37 rushes for 126 yards
Miami
45 passes for 309 yards
32 rushes for 153 yards
Northwestern
48 passes for 291 yards
38 rushes for 82 yards
Purdue
48 passes for 407 yards
29 rushes for 77 yards
Iowa
45 passes for 296 yards
38 rushes for 137 yards
I don't think you can say that 32-38 rushing plays is in any way "abandoning" the run, nor that the passing game was failing.
In Nebraska's two best Big 10 wins, Minnesota and MSU, we ran a comparable 39 and 36 times. Against MSU, the passing game saved our a$$.
In the Purdue and Northwestern games, any OC would have to conclude the rushing game had been given a chance and just wasn't cutting it.
Against BYU we had a decent mix and coulda should been in the win column.
Against Iowa we had a decent mix, NU outgained the #5 team in the nation, and killed themselves with 5 turnovers and a couple defensive brain farts. If you want to suggest Tommy wouldn't have thrown 4 interceptions if we'd run the ball more, it's a fair point.
In two of Nebraska's losses, Illinois and Wisconsin, we ran the ball more than we passed. 37 rushes to 28 passes against Wisconsin. 34 rushes to 31 passes against Illinois. BTW, in those same horrible conditions, a mediocre Illinois QB threw 45 times against Nebraska and won the game. I would never suggest we lost those games because we depended too much on the running game, or that Illinois should have passed that way all season. Each game unfolds a different way. Each game also requires Nebraska to play defense. A single defensive stand turns at least two of those pass-happy games into wins.
Again, when the running game is working, the team wins. That goes for almost every team. It means you're dominating the line (anyone see Baylor last night? Holy crap) It's much easier to say "pound the rock!" then to succeed at it. Those weren't different rushing plays you saw us running against UCLA. They were plays that a more motivated team was executing much better. Making it much easier for the coaches to stick with it. Definitely a hopeful sign. The real problem at the Purdue game was an entire team hitting psychological bottom together. You can certainly blame coaching for that, but the running game hardly looked like our salvation that day. It was a sh#t sandwich all around.
There aren't that many hard and fast conclusions we can extrapolate from these stats. It's a very mixed bag from a very weird season.
Moot point anyway, as I genuinely believe Riley wants to run the ball more next season. It could easily move from the 50/50 split this season to a 60/40 split, which would put us where the elite NCAA teams typically operate, which is pretty much where we were under Beck and Watson when the complaints were nearly identical.