[JustAnotherFan]

Stanford pretty much does the opposite.
Stanford substitutes massively, trying to optimize the the personnel for each play.
The hope is to overpower the D with bigger stronger blockers on power-run plays and overwhelm the defense with receivers on pass plays, etc. The hope is to catch the defense with personnel they cannot match up with either for a given play or overall because some personnel sets the defense just doesn't have.
So, yes, Stanford tends to run out of the no-receiver sets and tends to pass out of the empty backfield sets.

It's a different approach - much more the traditional NFL approach that features match-ups over tricking the defense. I am not sure that it is inherently better or worse, but it certainly has its trade-offs.

It is deeper than that. In the pros you might have third down backs, or a blocking tight end, but they still know they have to keep the defense honest. If you only run THREE plays out of a certain formation-player grouping all year, and all three plays are running plays between the tackles ...

Also, Trevor Speights is not what I would call someone who gives Stanford a personnel advantage in the passing game (other than being a better pass blocker than Love), but you knew very well that when he was on the field with multiple formations that it was a limited number of pass plays. Zero exceptions.

As a defensive back or linebacker ... that's what you call dinner.

[JustAnotherFan]

Stanford pretty much does the opposite.
Stanford substitutes massively, trying to optimize the the personnel for each play.
The hope is to overpower the D with bigger stronger blockers on power-run plays and overwhelm the defense with receivers on pass plays, etc. The hope is to catch the defense with personnel they cannot match up with either for a given play or overall because some personnel sets the defense just doesn't have.
So, yes, Stanford tends to run out of the no-receiver sets and tends to pass out of the empty backfield sets.

It's a different approach - much more the traditional NFL approach that features match-ups over tricking the defense. I am not sure that it is inherently better or worse, but it certainly has its trade-offs.

It is deeper than that. In the pros you might have third down backs, or a blocking tight end, but they still know they have to keep the defense honest. If you only run THREE plays out of a certain formation-player grouping all year, and all three plays are running plays between the tackles ...

Also, Trevor Speights is not what I would call someone who gives Stanford a personnel advantage in the passing game (other than being a better pass blocker than Love), but you knew very well that when he was on the field with multiple formations that it was a limited number of pass plays. Zero exceptions.

As a defensive back or linebacker ... that's what you call dinner.