I've watched several QB's run the spread being a Mizzou fan and have seen two different OC's versions. I have to say, with the right players, the spread can be fun to watch. It's a quik strike style offense. But you can also play ball control and run with the offense also. It all hinges on the QB play. You have to have a true dual threat QB to make it work. The big downside to the spread is the defense being on the field more. You better have good depth on defense.

Conventional offense is more balanced. Between the run and pass and is more of a ball control offense but still can have quick strike capability depending where you are on the field. It also allows the defense a chance to catch it's breath, allowing a team to not be required to have as much depth on the defensive side of the ball.

I think it's easier to contain a conventional offense compaired to a spread just for the ball control run first pass second mantality. But there is always exceptions to the rule. I think a true spread offense is a more potent offense with the correct players in place being they are looking to hit paydirt from the first snap of the ball no matter the field position.

Either way, to me, it does'nt matter. Both are effective ways to score points but just different theories on how to do it. It think the spread has the bigger downside with the defense being left on the field alot. This becomes magnified if you run into a well balanced attack.