quote:
And you realize that there's a difference in what Oregon runs and what Ohio State runs, right?

Did you watch the game? In what ways did those offenses resemble each other other than not lining up in the Power I?

I do realize there are varying forms of the spread, you were implying by your OP that a spread team lost to a pro style team.
I don't disagree that OSU was a more physical team by how they run it.

I disagree at how far apart both teams approach are. Obviously TEMPO are different, but that doesn't define an offense. One is under center more than the other, but that doesn't change most of the offense. Maybe attack points.

Here's how they are similar and like any coaching staff worth a crap they tinker and adjust to personnel on both their team and the opponent.

They both use the inside zone to set the the vert/horiz stretch of the D. They both run split zone but block it differently and use different formations. I saw both run single back power, outside zone, straight single back option using the bubble as the 3rd option and a lot of play action.

Oh yeah the passing game, very similar. Both attacking down field, running verts and slipping some Y/H underneath or out on flood. Pretty sure OSU scored once on this. The differences in the passing game are primarily how the game plan unfolds and Oregon's heavy reliance on bunched WR packages. Oregon works more horizontal early to beat you deep late. Extremely effective if they can get you on your heels pounding the ball to later start dropping bombs on you when your moral is low. OSU mixes both early.

I could go on and on but remember this about a spread offense in football. They all are modified by who is running it, either by the tempo or the formations. So just b/c someone lines up a little different or looks stronger it doesn't take away of how the plays are drawn up or classified as an offense. Just who has better players and coaching.