Conceptual Football Question (Less About Our Team)

One of the problems I have with modern football is that there are too many fundamental restrictions on who can do what.  For example - why should o-lineman be ineligible to receive a pass?  They can still block as their main function (and thus be 300+ lbs), but if a team wants to have a 300+ lb guy catch a pass... why not?  There are other classes of rules that are a bit ridiculous if one stops to consider them (illegal formations, jersey numbers, multiple passes, etc.)

People rave about some of the "innnovations" introduced into the game: such as offense/defense platoons and the forward pass, yet these weren't really fundamental concepts foreign to the game - they were just limited by the rules of the original game precursor (rugby).

It kinda seems to just depend on philosophy.
 

More big bodies and attacking gaps seems to work for getting consistent yards on the ground. While if you’re putting WRs on the edge you’re losing blockers and gaps at the LOS, limiting the amount of options your running game ultimately has. And if you’re still a run-heavy team, that can cause issues. Those issues can be mitigated to an extent with a running QB as you mentioned, but issues nonetheless as you’re relying on guys winning the 1on1 battles and getting to the next level. Teams have also countered the spread to run concepts with Viper type positions. Versatile players that can defend in multiple ways.
 

Modern Spread concepts seem to be more beneficial in the passing game. Scheming guys open on the edge with big YAC and creating space downfield.

Spread to run seems like it can be effective as a complimentary piece or a balanced offense (those Big 12 and PAC12 offenses are typically more pass heavy), but as the focal point of a run heavy offense there’s likely going to be some issues unless you have the perfect pieces to do it, which includes a running QB. 

We had a spread to run coach. That was Rich Rod. It certainly works as well. There are still lots of teams that do similar things. Any passing spread that runs is basically doing the same thing. I think RPOs got big because (1) It was new. (2) They can often be more explosive with run-pass instead of run-run. Defenses have adjusted with less man and more tricks like Michigan's defense. Things are just always evolving. Defenses got smaller and faster to stop passing and run spreads. Now some offenses want to add more beef to counteract it. Even Chip Kelly is running a lot of beef sets now. He is/was a spread run guy as well. 

Baylor under Art Briles used to do the former, stacking wide receivers right next to the sideline. In some ways that makes it easier on defensive backs because those receivers can only go forward, backward, or in, leaving no outside route option.

In much the same way that going Wing T or triple option can be tough to defend in 2021 because most teams are spread, the same goes for playing two or three tight ends. Teams don't know how to defend it because they don't see it much, and players can get confused on the field with a bunch of condensed formations (tight ends/fullbacks/condensed receivers).

Who's got the in-line tight end? Who's got the wing tight end? What if the "wing" lines up next to the tackle, and the in-line tight end lines up outside the wing with his hand down? Do you treat the off-the-ball tight end like an in-line tight end and line up on his inside shoulder?

Who's responsible in the run game for the extra gap created by the wing?

Personally, I think it's a whole lot easier to use the spread-to-run philosophy unless you have real difference-makers at tight end. And most teams don't have those difference-makers, including Michigan. I would rather have my elite athletes making guys miss in space rather than counting on 7 guys directly in front of him making perfect reads, using perfect angles/footwork, and being physical enough to push guys out of the way.

Urban Meyer had some great spread- power running offenses at UF and OSU. I know, sounds like an oxymoron but tou can dominate with a power run game out of the shotgun going 3 or 4 wide.

Like anything else, You need the right personelle and a program dedicated to the concepts.  If you add a mobile QB to that mix it adds even another dimension to the attack, but obviously you risk getting your QB injured if he’s running too many designed qb tus over the course of the season - not to mention it’s extremely rare to find a Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields or Russell Wilson type that can scramble, throw accurately and generally make proper reads.

Just run right up the middle behind the center and guards and then meet there and fall down and hope you got 4 yards

Google “run and shoot” offenses of Mouse  Davis.  That was the philosophical origins of that kind of rush attack you describe.  Its sort of the grandfather of the offenses of Rich Rod, Chip Kelly, etc.

A couple NFL teams implemented it (Oilers and Lions) but there was a real problem. Due to roster limits, they lacked big bodies for 3d- and 4th-and-short. Plus DEs and LBs were fast enough to get around O lines that lacked TEs or FBs who could chip or block them. 

I think it really just boils down to specific coaching philosophies and their ability to teach and get their players to execute. The game has pretty much moved away entirely from the under-center pro sets, and everything now is executed out of the shotgun.

Getting back to your point though, I think what makes the spread-to-run offense attractive to a lot of college teams (this wouldn't really apply at the pro level because the defenders are too good) is that it allows the offense to consistently put the opposing defenses in high leverage situations on the perimeter, or it forces defenses to align their defenders outside the box. This leads to a schematic advantage for the offense, which in turn means that the offense can level the playing field against more talented defenses. See for example, the WVU vs. Oklahoma game. 

Playing against power run teams (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.), when executed well can be demoralizing for a defense when they're just getting pounded on with no end in site. But it also requires flawless execution and complex blocking schemes to work consistently. To do that, you need players both with a lot of talent and high football IQ's. As an example, if Iowa State lined up with a FB and two TE's and tried to run it right at Texas, they would get annihilated, and I'm fairly certain Matt Campbell and his staff know that. Running a pro-spread shift the numbers more in Iowa State's advantage to make up for the gap in talent.

Getting back to teams like Michigan or Wisconsin, or Notre Dame for that matter that want to be modern power run teams; generally I think that has to do with the accessible talent related. to their geography (Wisconsin), or the realization that you will have lesser competition recruiting the most elite players required to run that kind of system now that everyone is trying to go spread (ND, Brian Kelly made this comment just prior to the beginning of the season), or in Michigan's case, because it's the philosophy the coach identifies with the most as a player and early on in his coaching career and at the professional level.

There are good coaches and mediocre coaches of both systems, and I think both can be effective. Why you might choose one over the other has a lot to do with a lot of smaller anecdotes that are true about your specific program. I think, in part this is why we see some otherwise great coaches fail at certain destinations. Their philosophy doesn't align with the other dynamics that make up the program. 

OP is Mike Leach?

Interesting point - philosophically there has been prior attempts at this idea. Historically, the line play at the dawn of American football was like a rugby scrum - shoulder to shoulder. Then there was some spacing but still tight like goal line formations. After the T-formation became popular in the 1920's the line was still pretty tight. Check out some of the old black and white movie films. 

Then in 1940, Missouri coach Don Faurot introduced the split-T - adding wider splits to the point that the OL now cover double what the old tradition T formation had. The defense (in an era where there was commonly 5-6 down lineman, and many were dual offense defense players) also widened. This opened up blocking angles and some credit that was making option plays possible since there was actually a possible hole (gap) for a potential ball carrier as opposed to a crease to push through. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0a9P-sr3yw

The Pac-12 team like Oregon seem to run the widest splits out there today.

So the idea of using the receivers to pull away and thin out the box follows in the same tradition of trying to figure out ways of dealing with a stacked box. During the game on Saturday, Rutgers tried a trick play version with what looked like a wide group of two receivers on each side leaving only the QB, one RB and five OL within the hashmarks. Designed to look like screen pass formation, it actually was trying the concept you were alluding to: thinning out the box - and forcing the defense to play assignment football against Vedral and Pacheco.

I honestly think Michigan makes their offense way too complicated. We have shown we have the ability to run the ball when they aren’t stacked 8 in the box. What I don’t understand is why we make our quarterbacks run complicated plays all of the time? Watching Rutgers  yesterday with Vedral, an average quarterback, chewing up our defense sideline to sideline, was ridiculous. They don’t make him complete complicated throws to his wide receivers.
It’s been beaten to death but there are reverses, rpo’s, tight ends in the flat, crossing routes, playaction passes down the seam, screens, etc that we don’t do consistently to help our run game out. Rutgers was vulnerable all day for 8-15 yard passes due to all of their coverage being in the box. You cannot tell me Sainristil, Henning, Wilson, Baldwin and Johnson can’t get separation from these corners? When you use playaction reads when the tight ends or a running back can leak out for a big play. McNamara needs to roll out more also, he seems to be good when he’s moving around and throwing on the run, partly because he’s on the shorter side and it helps him to see more of the field when he’s in open space. 

It has always seemed to me that college offense should be made as easy as possible for the players and focus on skill players making plays. There is no reason to make it harder than it has to be. Analyze the defense you're going up against and scheme to attack their weaknesses.

I became a Michigan football fan when I was very young. I don't think I would be one otherwise. This team, in a competitive game, is so difficult to watch.