I think my favorite thing about the spread option is that it pushes the opponents into making strategic decisions and creates an enormous complexity of strategies on several levels. I see several subgames being played within the offense game:
The option/alignment mismatch. This subgame is generally the most discussed because it forms the basis of a TO OFF. Heck, every Bro who plays NCAA on XBox knows the position game here. There's a numerical advantage, so the QB can force a series of two strategic commitments (which we tend to call reads.) With perfect play, this is a game that the person who chooses second always wins because of the number of choices. Either the dive or keep can be covered, and the QB gets to pick the one the defender doesn't. Same with the pitch read. That's a pretty good subgame to play.
The next subgame is the safety position. With a well executed option subgame, many teams are tempted to negate the numerical advantage at the LOS by bringing up the S. I hear this a lot in terms of 'we need to pass to be elite'. Again, the smart thing is that the S position is a strategic commitment by the defense. The better they cover the run, the more vulnerable they are to both the mid and long pass.
Next, there's (what CPJ calls) 'wrinkles'. These are calls that exploit the movement tendencies of the D dealing with the option subgame. There's a lot to write about here, but we've seen a bunch of them regularly this year with Vad, and then a bunch we never saw because of a lack of option game. This is more strategically interesting than pure X's and O's interesting for a reason I'll talk about in a second.
So, why does that make for a good game of football? Let's make it really boring and mathematical (as is meet and seemly for Tech). Let's say you're planning the call- how do you know what mix of strategies to use? You'd assign a payoff (the expected yardage gain- gains weighted by frequency) to each potential strategy. This means the spread option must have a strong team all around because if one strategy is much less effective than the others- say the pitch only has an expected payoff of 1.25 yards- the defense knows you can't rely on it and will start ignoring the pitch. That shuts down the choice structure and suddenly choosing second is a losing proposition.
Now, what's particularly interesting is that a smart coach can prevent the formation of stable equilibria even when not every choice is a good one. Say, for example, that due to relative size and strength, the D can get all up in the middle and shut down the running lanes. Called plays to the outside prevent that from becoming a best strategy for the D.
So, why do I love the spread option? Because when run well there are no choices a defense can make that can't be exploited. That's perfect for Tech for a few reasons. It's a thinking man's game, and if GT is going to be an elite team we have to do it being smarter than the other teams. It's not a viable option and, frankly, I'd rather see us 0fer forever than have a team of Bear Bryant character. In fact, if you watch Dodd football games the position is different, but GT was using the same strategic choices to put opponents in a bind.
Second, it needs competent players but not superstars to succeed. The payoff comes from strategic mismatch, not raw talent mismatch. Sure, we'd be a brilliant team if we had a NFL hall of famer quarterback. We'd also never lose if our center was an enraged black bear whose cubs are just behind the opposing goal post. It's a lot more likely given our constraints that we can pick up a QB who can throw consistently 10-15 yard passes. If every choice in the game trees discussed can pick up 4 yards, we can start gaining 10 or more because of the nature of the strategic game.
This is where I really don't get people who want CPJ's head on a pike and a passing mix offense. I sure as heck get the frustration when the QB can't make the read or the O Line can't set up the mismatch, or, going back, we can't make a wide open pass 15 yards down the field. But I see improvements steadily in all these areas. Why would you want to switch to a scheme that requires more talent to be effective than the spread option? The Institute can do better at recruiting than we are now, but I see nothing in 100 years at Grant Field that says we can be elite in THAT game.
), our offense seems to require positive yardage plays on every down or it faulters. It's not really designed for big chunks when the D knows that's what you need. Yes, it's known for big chunks, but they usually occur when we're not behind the sticks. Teams used this against us this year and made us play flawless offense in order to score. As we all know, nobody plays flawlessly, especially not us.