[Goose]

I would add that I think spread offenses are at a disadvantage against fundamentally sound defenses.  Think Oregon when they struggled against us or had trouble against Auburn in the national championship.  So spread works well against 90% of college defenses but can be shut down by most NFL defenses.

I suspect some of the concepts will find success in the NFL, but it will be tough to make a base spread option offense successful.

Of course, what happens when college football stops producing QB's capable of running a pro offense?

BC

I am old enough to remember when they said the same about the wishbone. While the spread offense is molded somewhat by the college rules, it was greatly helped initially by the fact people didn't know how to defend it. That is now a solved problem, and, like the wishbone, the spread offense isn't the panacea it once was. The "pro" offense is what it is because it provides the best compromise between all the strategic options. The two-back set has now given way to a one-back set under many circumstances, and there is a lot more shotgun than their used to be. You can do that with the pro set. That is why it has survived. Any offense that concentrates on a few aspects of the game at the expense of all others is fatally handicapped. The wishbone didn't work well if you were behind and the spread has trouble on third and 2. (these are just a few of the issues). Rule changes have favored the passing game over the running game, but in both NCAA and NFL football, if you can't run, you don't win.
Also, one should not confuse tempo with the style of offense. You can operate up-tempo with a pro-style offense if/when you wish. For these reasons, there will always be "pro-style" QBs coming from the college ranks. Some, probably very few, spread-option QBs will make it in the pro game, not because they weren't trained for it in college, but rather because they had a different skill set. The "Bear raid" was not a typical spread offense. It was not Oregon, it was WSU. Therefore, Goff may not be a good reference point. RG III is, I think, a better example.

[Goose]

I would add that I think spread offenses are at a disadvantage against fundamentally sound defenses.  Think Oregon when they struggled against us or had trouble against Auburn in the national championship.  So spread works well against 90% of college defenses but can be shut down by most NFL defenses.

I suspect some of the concepts will find success in the NFL, but it will be tough to make a base spread option offense successful.

Of course, what happens when college football stops producing QB's capable of running a pro offense?

BC

I am old enough to remember when they said the same about the wishbone. While the spread offense is molded somewhat by the college rules, it was greatly helped initially by the fact people didn't know how to defend it. That is now a solved problem, and, like the wishbone, the spread offense isn't the panacea it once was. The "pro" offense is what it is because it provides the best compromise between all the strategic options. The two-back set has now given way to a one-back set under many circumstances, and there is a lot more shotgun than their used to be. You can do that with the pro set. That is why it has survived. Any offense that concentrates on a few aspects of the game at the expense of all others is fatally handicapped. The wishbone didn't work well if you were behind and the spread has trouble on third and 2. (these are just a few of the issues). Rule changes have favored the passing game over the running game, but in both NCAA and NFL football, if you can't run, you don't win.
Also, one should not confuse tempo with the style of offense. You can operate up-tempo with a pro-style offense if/when you wish. For these reasons, there will always be "pro-style" QBs coming from the college ranks. Some, probably very few, spread-option QBs will make it in the pro game, not because they weren't trained for it in college, but rather because they had a different skill set. The "Bear raid" was not a typical spread offense. It was not Oregon, it was WSU. Therefore, Goff may not be a good reference point. RG III is, I think, a better example.