CorsicanaBear said:

---

Perhaps they are going to put bigger people on the field. But they are going to still run the RPO and Spread Option.

---

REX said:

---

Timbear said:

---

Snow sure hopes it changes back. Changing back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust? No way. Weaker teams know the spread can level the playing field against teams with better players. It's not going anywhere.

---

You are correct sir.
Wait till you see teams with better players running it.
It's going to be scary
Go noles

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Timbear said:

---

I don't think Lincoln Riley's crying about it.

---

Nope, but like most spread coaches, Riley has all but abandoned the breakneck tempo that was all the rage just five or six years ago.

I know it's difficult for the "Art Briles invented football" crowd to recognize or acknowledge, but there is no question that a shift is taking place at all levels of football away from the HUNH and back to more traditional tempo -- and more conventional schemes in a lot of cases.

The spread won't go away because there are elements of it, such as the RPO game, that are very difficult to defend. But fewer and fewer coaches are willing to sacrifice their defenses to tempo the way Chip Kelly and Art Briles were. And many more are getting reacquainted with the tight end and fullback positions and realizing the value those players hold against defenses geared to defend wide-open spread attacks.

The spread is a good offense, and it's legacy on the game of football will be a lasting one. But as with every other offensive scheme in the history of the sport, defensive coaches have made their adjustments to it and are catching up to many of the aspects that made it seem unstoppable in its heyday.

Innovation in football a lot of times is cyclical because the adjustments you make to stop one scheme make you vulnerable to others. And if what's happening at the high school game is any indication of what we'll see at higher levels soon (and it usually is), Phil Snow's assessment is 100 percent correct.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Dman said:

---

Wow. Well. I've seen NO sign of Big 12 teams (the conference we play in and have to win to have a shot at any national importance) going big and ugly on offense. Therefore needing the same on defense. I see dual threat QBs and FAST receivers putting up LOTS of points. Does anyone see 10-3 or 14-10 college games again anytime soon on the horizon?.

I really hope he's not projecting wishful thinking to match his comfort zone and what he knows best.

---

^^^ This ^^^

"wishful thinking is never sound policy"

---

Dman said:

---

I really hope he's not projecting wishful thinking to match his comfort zone and what he knows best.

---

Timbear said:

---

I don't think Lincoln Riley's crying about it.

---

Bearish said:

---

Krieg said:

---

Bearish said:

---

This is why he's probably right - at least for our conference:

Per https://footballscoop.com/news/nfl-draft-picks-conference-years/

NFL Draft picks per capita since

Since 2018
1. SEC 4.17
2. Pac-12 2.63
3(t). ACC 2.61
3(t). Big Ten 2.61
5. Big 12 2.30

Since 2017
1. SEC 4.05
2. ACC 2.76
3. Pac-12 2.75
4. Big Ten 2.57
5. Big 12 2.00

Since 2016
1. SEC 3.95
2. Pac-12 2.73
3. Big Ten 2.67
4. ACC 2.54
5. Big 12 2.15

NFL Draft picks per capita, 2010-19
1. SEC 3.85
2. Big Ten 2.93
3. Pac-12 2.70
4. ACC 2.67
5. Big 12 2.31

Something's gotta give, guys. The top athletes want to go to the NFL and are playing at schools that best prepare them for that.

---

That's why Alabama lines up under center every play still with a drop back, pocket QB right?

Oh wait.

It's continued to tend towards spread formations and mobile QBs and will continue to do so until it doesn't work as well as something else. Clemson says it works quite nicely.

---

I don't think you watch much NFL football. It's a shotgun, throw it downfield league. But they do it with big players that can actually block somebody. Clemson runs some spread and RPO, but they can also line up and punch you in the mouth when they need to.

If the spread was truly unstoppable, Art Briles wouldn't have lost to Michigan State and Mike Leach would have won at least one conference championship by now.

---

canoso said:

---

I always thought we lost to Michigan State because we left at least 14 points on the field due to our own miscues. Didn't know the spread had anything to do with those points.

---

JohnProctor said:

---

Bearish said:

---

This is why he's probably right - at least for our conference:

Per https://footballscoop.com/news/nfl-draft-picks-conference-years/

NFL Draft picks per capita since

Since 2018
1. SEC 4.17
2. Pac-12 2.63
3(t). ACC 2.61
3(t). Big Ten 2.61
5. Big 12 2.30

Since 2017
1. SEC 4.05
2. ACC 2.76
3. Pac-12 2.75
4. Big Ten 2.57
5. Big 12 2.00

Since 2016
1. SEC 3.95
2. Pac-12 2.73
3. Big Ten 2.67
4. ACC 2.54
5. Big 12 2.15

NFL Draft picks per capita, 2010-19
1. SEC 3.85
2. Big Ten 2.93
3. Pac-12 2.70
4. ACC 2.67
5. Big 12 2.31

Something's gotta give, guys. The top athletes want to go to the NFL and are playing at schools that best prepare them for that.

---

Well, I want to win the Big 12. Sending guys to the NFL is just sprinkles on the cake.

Tier 1 lineman schools that consistently get the top athletes on the line of scrimmage shouldn't run the spread (at least consistently). Just dominate at the line of scrimmage and keep it mostly simple. These superior athletes will end up in the NFL and those teams will win a lot of games and play in quality bowl games almost every year.

Tier 2 lineman schools that don't get these top linemen should run the spread if they have aspirations of 10+ win season and conference championship hopes. A more traditional style or pro style might best case get you to 6 or 7 wins if all goes well against superior line talent (and most of those wins will be against the lesser talented schools in the conference). The spread gives those schools a good chance to win against better talented line if run properly. The same second tier line schools have very little chance to consistently win against superior line talent running a more traditional offense.

Just my opinion, but the evidence seems to support this pretty overwhelmingly with only the occasional aberration.

Which tier is Baylor?

---

bear2be2 said:

---

There have been some interesting points made here, but to get anywhere substantive in this conversation requires more nuance than some have shown in this thread so far. "The spread" is a really nebulous term as its being used here. Almost every team has shotgun, three- or four-wide sets in their arsenal that are, by definition, spread formations.

I think most would agree that's a good thing. The more multiple you are offensively, the harder you are defend, and if you don't have a means of getting down the field quickly when necessary, your box is missing a very important tool.

But I think the game is absolutely trending away from the extreme tempo "basketball on grass" we've seen the last five to 10 years. And a big reason for that is that the coaches who've had the most success with it (Kelly and Briles) are either out of the college game or out of the incubator that helped their schemes thrive, and their disciples haven't had near the success with those same schemes that they themselves experienced.

Maybe it's not so much Briles' offense or Kelly's offense as it is that those guys were uniquely qualified to get the most out of those schemes. I think the fact that their success has gone largely unrepeated by members of their own coaching trees would suggest that's the case.

---

Timbear said:

---

Hey, relax, Saxt. Lincoln Riley ain't crying about it. Where do you read Briles in that opinion?

---