You better be able to score some points in CFB TODAY.

[1999.2004.2011]

Some of the posts in this thread have lost the forest through the trees.

These offenses are high-scoring BECAUSE of powerful running games. There wasn't a lot of high-flying passing games, except from Baylor, who eventually lost their game. Baylor's running total? -20 yards.

Here are the rushing totals from the three games mentioned in the post:

OSU - 281, ALA - 170
ORE - 301, FSU - 180
MSU - 238, Baylor - -20

All three teams that won also won the ground game. That's not by accident. Some was with the spread. Some, like OSU, was between the tackles and with the QB. The bottom line? If you want a powerful offense, you need a powerful offensive line. There's no way around it. Get the OLine settled, run the ball effectively, and allow for man-coverage on your WR's to hit the big play while keeping your defense off the field. How many times this year did UConn run for more than 170 (Alabama's total)? Twice. A 37 point effort in a win against UCF, and a 20 point effort in a loss to SMU that included 5 turnovers. Run the ball, and don't turn the ball over. A simple formula, actually...

You are right, most of the high scoring offenses in college football are predicated by the run. The Oregon (and some extent Chip Kelly's offense in the NFL) are run-based offenses, that are able to effectively use zone-read and play action wrinkles, which create mismatches for the defense. Oregon is able to use it so effectively because they have athletes all over the field, hence why they can spread out teams and exploit weaknesses in zone coverage.

While scheme is important, my biggest takeaway is that talent wins out 9 times out of 10. The teams in the final four are loaded with NFL talent on both sides of the ball. Randy Edsall was able to identify and recruit under-rated players while at UConn, but if you look at the NFL right now, you can see that Edsall was pretty good at procuring NFL players. Hopefully Diaco can replicate the same, regardless of what system he uses going forward.

 

[noeynox]

The point of thread, is better be able to score big time points. By whatever system you employ. When Alabama scores 35 and loses, the ball game has changed boys. They are quintessential program for winning 21-7 type games.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The point of thread, is better be able to score big time points. By whatever system you employ. When Alabama scores 35 and loses, the ball game has changed boys. They are quintessential program for winning 21-7 type games.

It's the case now, but things always go in cycles and this really applies to national title picture. We are so far away from that it's disgusting.

We got to build our program so that we can compete in our league, and win conference titles. The Big East - we were able to do it with disciplined hard nosed defense, reliable kicking and a solid running game on offense. We just never put the passing game and a dynamic offense with multiple threats together under Edsall.

I look at Stanford for the past several years as the model I'd like to approach. Smart, big, fast and tough football players and an offense that can go option run OR drop back pass out of multiple sets. The 3 TE look they has got to be mouth watering for any offensive minded play caller out there.

Specific to us, my concern is our offensive coordinating, play calling. The speed and efficiency which an offense can move between live balls. That's what was really on display last night. Very efficient offenses.

We were so bad, that I wonder what, if anything, we ever really practiced, and there was a big difference in 2013, when Shane Day started calling plays.

My personal opinion, as that we haven't had a really creative play caller that was able to actually be creative, besides Coach Day, since Coach Skippy. Moorhead, you can see what he wants to do on offense clearly these days, but he was handcuffed by Edsall, as Edsall did with all his OC's.

The UCONN offense, even when Orlovsky was playing, under Edsall, was always a very simple playbook, that involved building an offense through recruiting that was good enough to execute, even when opposing defenses knew the play calls.

The natural advantage of offense, is that the offense is supposed to know the play call, and act, while a defense is supposed to react.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Some of the posts in this thread have lost the forest through the trees.

These offenses are high-scoring BECAUSE of powerful running games. There wasn't a lot of high-flying passing games, except from Baylor, who eventually lost their game. Baylor's running total? -20 yards.

Here are the rushing totals from the three games mentioned in the post:

OSU - 281, ALA - 170
ORE - 301, FSU - 180
MSU - 238, Baylor - -20

All three teams that won also won the ground game. That's not by accident. Some was with the spread. Some, like OSU, was between the tackles and with the QB. The bottom line? If you want a powerful offense, you need a powerful offensive line. There's no way around it. Get the OLine settled, run the ball effectively, and allow for man-coverage on your WR's to hit the big play while keeping your defense off the field. How many times this year did UConn run for more than 170 (Alabama's total)? Twice. A 37 point effort in a win against UCF, and a 20 point effort in a loss to SMU that included 5 turnovers. Run the ball, and don't turn the ball over. A simple formula, actually...

The name of the game is to score quickly and score often. It can be on the ground, just as easily as in the air, but passing opens up the ground game. The old run, run, run approach to offense is NOT the way the game is played. Why is it that Connecticut can't seem to leave the by-gone era good by.