[Farm93]

The problem with UCB's O is that it creates a bad D.  Oregon was noteworthy because their D managed to thrive despite staying on the field most of the game.

UCB's D is not that lucky because the O is not as good and the D is not as deep.  When the D is out there they are getting pushed around, and then when the O sputters they are right back out there to struggle some more.  A slower moving O, see Stanford, would really help their D. 

Simply a UCB style O creates a bad D.  No way Stanford 2015 survives with only a few DLs with the UCB O scheme.

That's not really the critical reason for the no thanks comment though.  UCB O still struggles for long stretches against quality teams.  And it is fueled by a QB that is already more worried about the NFL draft than winning at UCB.

[Farm93]

The problem with UCB's O is that it creates a bad D.  Oregon was noteworthy because their D managed to thrive despite staying on the field most of the game.

UCB's D is not that lucky because the O is not as good and the D is not as deep.  When the D is out there they are getting pushed around, and then when the O sputters they are right back out there to struggle some more.  A slower moving O, see Stanford, would really help their D. 

Simply a UCB style O creates a bad D.  No way Stanford 2015 survives with only a few DLs with the UCB O scheme.

That's not really the critical reason for the no thanks comment though.  UCB O still struggles for long stretches against quality teams.  And it is fueled by a QB that is already more worried about the NFL draft than winning at UCB.