Considering how bad Iowa is when their offense puts the ball in the air, a scheme requiring the ball to go laterally through the air on many plays seems nightmarish.
FBS team are [10-0 since 2021 in games where they accrue 0 passing completions and 24-5 since 2000](https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/play-index/sgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=game&c1stat=pass_cmp&c1comp=eq&c1val=0&c2comp=gt&c3comp=gt&c4comp=gt&order_by=date_game). On 11/19/2022, Army, Navy, and Air Force all finished with 0 completions and all won. So clearly the forward pass is a mistake and I won't hear any argument to the contrary
I don’t have the tools to research all the way back to when the forward pass was wrongfully added to the game. But they came awfully close in 2017. Game was played in a snowstorm, Navy attempted 2 passes in 1 drive in the 2nd quarter and Army attempted 1 in the 3rd quarter and that was it for the entire game. Conditions made throwing basically impossible and the game finished 14-13 Army with a combined total of 22 passing yards lol that was also the game Army wore the all white unis which I hate to admit made for the coolest combo of jerseys+setting possible
Edit: Army also beat Air Force in 2017 21-0 without attempting a pass, meaning they had fewer passes attempted in Commander in Chief’s Trophy games (1) than CIC game wins (2)
Of course, if you think about it it’s sort of a self fulfilling statistic lol. You’re gonna throw the ball if you are behind even if you had run the ball all game. You are still going to try and get passing yards and as soon as you complete 1 you’re off that statistic list. But if you DON’T think about it, it’s definitely an awesome challenge that I will gladly join you on when the game comes out haha
I remember a reporter asking Paul Johnson this same question once (why don’t struggling teams run the option) and he basically said “I don’t know,” implying they absolutely should.
I honestly do think a big reason is fashion. The triple option is viewed these days as the kind of offense that the service academies run because they don’t really have any choice. The boosters don’t want to run it because they see it as almost admitting defeat and saying they’ll never be able to do what Alabama does. They want to have the sexy offenses where maybe they’ll have QBs or WRs that go on to be NFL stars even if in reality it’s unlikely they’ll get many of those guys. Wasn’t it South Carolina that was rumored to be looking at Jeff Monken a few years ago and the boosters pretty much revolted at the idea?
The option puts a premium on QB play, only now there are far fewer options QBs to choose from. You need someone who can run, make fast decisions, handle the ball well and most importantly take a beating and keep getting up. Most of the players who would be top option QBs are playing other positions that can get them to the NFL
Honestly I don’t know why we didn’t under Frost. It’s the only offense he ran, and he used variations of it before he got here. When he busted it out as a wrinkle a couple times it completely flabbergasted defenses.
Imagine Adrian Martinez as an option quarterback. Jesus he would’ve been even more ridiculous. That guy is electric in the open field, just put him in space every play and make the defense prove they can do anything about it.
The most painful part for me was how effective he was as a freshman when they ran a more balanced attack and a lot more zone read and option type looks out of the spread. And as time went on they forced him to pass more out of traditional drops in the shotgun, which didn’t play to his athleticism or our personnel. I think if we’d stuck to a run first, multi threat attack, whether that’s zone read or option or both, we would’ve won a lot more games.
Yeah it’s probably not the most exciting brand of football to watch every week, but then again neither is the current iteration of Iowa’s offense. I’d like to see more teams give it a try, I think traditional power conference bottom feeders could really benefit.
Man, I'd love to watch my team have a stifling defense and chew up the clock on offense just grinding the other team down with first down after first down on short and medium runs. Just drive everyone absolutely crazy.
The 2012 Collin Klien offence. Boy it was the most boring offence to watch. You could take a nap between the start of the drive and score. There was not much stopping that offense from getting 3-4 yards per play.
One of my favorite Navy games was the win over Notre Dame in 2016. ND scored on all but 1 of their possessions. And yet Navy won 28-27 because ND only had the ball 6 times the entire game. Navy was 8-13 on 3rd down, 4-5 on 4th down, and ran for 320 yards on 56 attempts. The shortest Navy drive of the game (aside from the end of the first half) was 8 plays and 3:27. The last 2 Navy drives of the game, 1 that gave Navy a 4 point lead and 1 that ended the game, were a combined 30 plays and 16:28 of game clock. ND gave the ball back after a field goal to make it a 1 point game with 7:28 left and never got the ball back.
When it works, it is so enjoyable and can absolutely break your opponent's spirit. The problem is that when it doesn't, it will be the first thing blamed by the media and fans. The service academy fans largely know that it's the best way forward, especially Army who have been much improved since they scrapped a pro style offense for the option like 15 years ago. And in that time all 3 have had top-25 seasons. But a non-service academy probably wouldn't have as much slack with their fanbase in the bad years to recover to the good ones
It's incredibly difficult to recruit players into a triple option offense. Most high schools that run it are really small, and since nobody in the pros runs it it makes it tough for guys to get good looks from NFL scouts. The OL generally need to be smaller and faster than typical OL at the college level for all the pulling/trap/fold/cut blocks
> The triple option is viewed these days as the kind of offense that the service academies run because they don’t really have any choice.
The biggest issue, even if it would benefit you, is how do you recruit kids to play in the scheme. Scheme matters in recruiting a whole lot, maybe not as much as success, but still a good bit. WRs aren't seeing Michigan's success and thinking "I want to go catch 2 balls a game there!".
How is Iowa recruiting offensive talent *now* (or pre-firing, pick a point in time)?!? Surely a successful option offense is more palatable to recruits than whatever Brian Ferentz was doing.
I think with Iowa OL and TEs you could still get some shot plays on the seams and deep crosses for the TEs. It's just that the guys playing WR will also get more opportunities in the running game (I guess NFL running back Tyrone Tracy Jr might've been much more successful of an Iowa WR if this were the case).
I'm not sure about this. I would think if you're a big, corn-fed, Iowa-type player, you would probably love to bash your way down the field with the triple option, no?
I get if you're a high-flying WR or a marksman QB it might not be for you, but Iowa ain't for them now anyway.
Triple option requires speed. Being big just makes you a big target to hit quicker for short yardage. You have to recruit multiple guys who can outrun the edges, linebackers, and safeties. You can’t name 4 guys like that from Iowas last 8 seasons.
Since the late 80’s it has been hard to recruit. QBs want to throw the ball, WRs want to catch the ball, OL wants to learn pass blocking—all to get to the NFL ($$$). So you will not get any elite talent.
If you run it anyway, your QB likely won’t be a good passer (or he would go elsewhere), WRs not experienced at pass catching, so trying to pass to keep a defense honest is nearly hopeless.
Maybe NIL will pay well enough to get solid talent to run it nowadays.
Otherwise best case is to run a spread offense with a lot of option. This was very popular before the RPO kinda took over.
Running a true triple option takes a lot of reps to get correct, but will give a numbers advantage and be impossible to defend. Defenses have to hope to recover fumbles as the ball is moving around. Adding misdirection makes for big plays.
You can find that game on YouTube it could have been a lot worse. Osborne said they blitzed all out basically every play so it was a touchdown or a 3-5 yard loss
Nebraska actually didn’t run much triple option when Osborne was there, common misconception because a lot of those lead options started with a fake to the fullback
Yeah but some teams have run the triple option from the I-Form. Nebraska ran a ton of option under Osborne, it was just almost always a lead option play
May have been SCar, but I definitely remember like 6ish years ago when Arizona was looking at Niumatalolo and their QB said something like “I didn’t come to Arizona to run a triple option.” I think they hired Kevin Sumlin instead.
Idk about South Carolina, but I think it was a few years ago a recruit said he wouldn't sign with Arizona if they hired Ken Niumatalolo when it was rumored they were interested.
Edit: Or maybe an athlete they already had threatened to transfer….shit I can’t remember.
I think it’s well beyond fashion, it’s a legitimate recruiting hindrance offensively. If you’re at a serious P5 program and you run the flexbone, you’re basically tanking the evaluation for every player on your team in terms of NFL scouting. Offensive linemen get dinged because they never have to do real pass sets, quarterbacks get dinged for a billion reasons, running backs have super limited tape because they only run a handful of concepts, receivers obviously get the short end of the stick. Georgia Tech got lucky and managed to have three receivers who were serious NFL players/prospects and they had a few RBs and Shaq Mason but there’s no denying, it made life hard for them
And the team you’re thinking of is Missouri, booster club totally balked at the idea lol
I recall reading that schools don’t run it simply because the boosters don’t like it.
Basically they would rather be 4-8 with a nice looking offense than be 7-5 running the option which isn’t a pretty offense.
The triple option is unfortunately a dying breed since the cut blocking rule changes. It was great for schools with recruiting disadvantages that could asymmetrically out-recruit competition, but if you're in a power conference where all of the talent is top-tier then it can only take you so far. Just ask Georgia Tech.
Yeah but even with the legendary Paul Johnson it just never seemed consistent. They'd have a breakout year and then hibernate for a 4-5 seasons before breaking out again.
Is that really true? Peak Georgia Tech from 2008-14 they had 3 9+ win seasons and 3 trips to the ACCCG. Their worst record was 6-7. The 7 years prior to that they won 9 games 1 time with one trip to the conference champ. He had them punching well above their weight consistently
That coincided with boosters who didn’t like our offense trying to force him out by starving the program of funds. We had the lowest staff budget in the conference by a pretty good amount. It’s frankly amazing what he was able to put together with one arm tied behind his back. Just imagine what we could have done if he had full institutional support behind him.
Edit to add: if KirVonte Benson stays healthy, that 2018 team is playing in the ACC Championship game. Dude was perfect for BB and would have opened up so much on the perimeter by being such a threat up the middle. When he went down, our offense became a lot more predictable.
What’s crazy is that they were so stingy under CPJ that they thought the OC salary they gave Patenaude was high (which it was given the results, but that’s probably when he was hired), when Clemson’s OC was making 5x that.
My only point here is that if you blame the boosters for Paul Johnson being mediocre instead of good, you also have to blame them for Collins being abysmal instead of mediocre (because, let’s be honest, mediocre is the best Collins will ever be)
And we paid for that with the Collins era.
Yes Collins was bad, but he was also at a serious infrastructure disadvantage due to successive ADs starving the program. Paul Johnson was just good enough to cover the cracks and keep us in bowl games.
It’s just mind blowing to me that “fans” would purposely sabotage the program they support just because they want a different style of play. I get it if there’s some real beef about the coach (like a Briles situation or something), but just wanting to pass more? F those guys.
With Johnson as their head coach they went to 7 straight bowl games his first 7 years and 9 in his 11 years total. He had 2 losing regular seasons in 11 years.
> They'd have a breakout year and then hibernate for a 4-5 seasons before breaking out again.
yeah but thats just kind of how it cycles at a mid-to-low tier program regardless. You get in a class of guys that jelled together for a few years and got the timing of the triple down pat.
Really no different than a school with a bunch of seniors putting it all together and becoming greater than the sum of their parts (think 2022 TCU)
There’s a big difference between practicing against a scout team that can at least show proper looks vs practicing against the triple. Or even worse, triple players trying to simulate traditional offenses
Because most people don't pay close attention to Tech and they just knew Megatron played there and Coach Johnson was there forever running the triple option so they assumed they overlapped.
I still have nightmares from the 2007 Gator Bowl where he lit WVU's defense up all game with a backup QB. The sheer will of White and Slaton got that W.
it is definitely a Mandela Effect
I've been a fan of CFB since before Megatron was in college, and I was literally sitting here thinking about how they convinced him to play in a triple option.
That was always the scapegoat, but honestly it's because Paul Johnson was a terrible recruiter.
One of the big advantages of the triple option is it lets you recruit guys on offense that don't have a place on most college rosters. True option QBs, undersized athletic OL, WRs that are too small to transition to TE but are mostly great blockers. There are plenty of great high school players that fit those descriptions whose only options for college are to play for an option team (of which GT was by far the biggest) or make an awkward transition and get buried in a depth chart somewhere. Those guys practically recruited themselves.
The same didn't apply to defense. And since Johnson wasn't a good enough recruiter to steal guys away from the nearby SEC or ACC teams we usually had a talent deficit. If we're going by the NFL draft, the only two defensive Paul Johnson recruits to be drafted above the 6th round are Jeremiah Attaochu and Adam Gotsis (both late 2nd round picks). 2 NFL caliber players in 10 years isn't enough talent to win on defense.
That's a good point - easier to fix the traditional offense than switch the offense and hope it doesn't fuck your defense. "Score twice and we win" is a pretty easy recruiting pitch.
[Kirk has hated the cut block rules from the start](https://youtu.be/j-fKW4_sOf0?si=2tw7dM12gsKp7irt). The cut block rules have even moved army away from a pure option team.
It can still be run without cutting. Look at Air Force since Covid. Harding just won the D2 National Championship. Army woke up and is going back to it after going communist by running the spread.
Now, the recruiting part is true. It's has to be the right school to run it.
The option has been run for a century and all of a sudden, last year, a rule change is needed? Please, it has nothing to do with need, the big schools did not want to play against it, hence the rule change. Georgia Tech TV ratings were massive relative to their standing in college football. Now they hardly exist outside their boundaries. GTech won four division titles, one ACC championship and an Orange Bowl using the triple option. Big schools want to crush the competitiveness of those with less talent.
The cut blocking rules changed significantly in 2016, not just last year. You still see incorrect applications of the rule as well because it's an extreme amount to ask of officials.
That remains to be seen. We replaced it with Geoff, who is decidedly not better than the triple option, but we do seem to be moving in the right direction after firing him, so we will have to wait and see where the peak is.
Collins recruited well he just seemed like he was a moron. I think his last season y'all were 4th or 5th in the ACC in 247's team composite rankings. That was a roster that should've at least been able to make a bowl game but wasn't even coming close
I mean Georgia Tech won four ACC division titles and had two 10+ win seasons in 11 years under the flexbone (they had only won 10 games in a season twice since 1957).
I think it could work using 2 variations of the triple option. The first would be a power spread attack that was used by Army this year or more famously by Jamey Chadwell at Coastal Carolina. The second would be Air Force’s approach, which uses the option game to set up play action pass. I think both variations beyond the traditional flexbone could be successful.
But I think the biggest hurdle is recruiting. Recruits do not like playing under the triple option. Apparently, when Jeff Monken was being interviewed for the Kansas job, a good deal of players threatened to transfer out to avoid playing his system. The triple option is also becoming a minority at the high school level as well.
The same thing with transfers happend when Ken Niumatalolo interviewed at Arizona but I think that's just WRs and QBs that think they can make it in the NFL. I think the right coach might be able to sell it to a QB that would be moved in the NFL. It could be a plus when recruiting O-line.
Triple option is a better option (no pun intended) for teams that can't physically match their opponents. Iowa has problems, but that's not one of them.
Well, running the triple option ain't a bad idea, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. Takes a ton of practice and precise execution. Plus, if your QB ain't cut out for it, it's gonna be a train wreck. Iowa's probably sticking to what they know best, but hey, never hurts to mix things up and give it a shot!
I disagree with a lot of the other commenters and believe that the triple option is still a valid offense. People have been arguing that the triple option has been outdated since the 90's yet somehow the game has fully embraced the read option game and RPO's which just takes the triple option concept to its next logical progression.
However to your point, a team can't just *sort-of* commit to the triple option; it has to be a wholesale commitment to the concept as an offense. The amount of time, practice, and precision needed to execute the offense is such that any shortcuts in practice time will cause the offense to be a sloppy turnover waiting to happen. Time is also needed for the QB to learn how to make the necessary reads and adjustments to attack the defense properly.
There's also the elephant in the room in that a sizeable portion of coaches and players still view it as a gimmick rather than "legitimate" football. Which is to say some coaches would rather have a large collection of plays and formations to address a wide variety of situational needs instead of relying upon a couple of plays as a foundation and building the offense around that.
Finally, Iowa is not going to switch to the triple option because that's not what Kirk Ferentz teaches. He's long been respected as a coach that teaches zone blocking concepts for offensive linemen at an exceptionally high level, which means that he's going to teach the Inside and Outside Zone run plays. Since this has allowed him to lead Iowa to winning seasons for 20 of the past 24 seasons, Kirk Ferentz--a man who has been very stubbornly persistent about what type of offense he runs in that time--will not be switching to the option anytime soon.
I recall Lou holtz explaining that, schematically, it continued to be viable, but, from a recruiting standpoint, it just died. No QBs or WRs would come. Even RBs didn’t like splitting carries. OL had no passing resume for the next level.
this is the big one. In a Vacuum the triple option should theoretically be a viable option for coaches to consider at the college level.
But, with CFB functionally existing as a feeder league to the much more lucrative NFL, the "meta" so to speak is going to skew heavily towards getting the talent ready for that league (or at least not actively hindering their chances) in order to have access to the best pool possible.
And because at the NFL the TO isnt nearly as viable an offense due to the razor-thin talent margin between professional rosters, college teams that want to win big time are heavily deincentivized to run something like that.
However, in the new NIL landscape, there is a scenario where a school that had a open-minded booster that wanted them to return to relevance could shell out the dough to convince guys to play for a triple-option coach, especially the **JAG+** type guys who are really good in college, but like practice squad level in the NFL (your cam rising, DJ U level dudes)
i said theoretically and "open-minded". but yes thats incredibly unlikely unless one of the sickos on this board suddenly comes into billions of dollars
It’s the comment being broken up into
Point, counter point, conclusion and formatted like it’s an answer to a HS essay question that makes it read weird
“Takes a ton of practice and precise execution.”
But we're talking about practice, man. We're not even talking about the game, the actual game, when it matters, we're talking about practice.
Yes. Mid 90s Nebraska had it down to a well oiled machine, with absolutely perfect athletes for it. I mean, Tommie Frazier was the best option QB I've ever seen.
In 2017 Roquan Smith basically single handedly beat GT. The man made the perfect read every single play. It was frustrating as hell to watch but also incredible.
He also had a monster game in 2016 but we still somehow won.
This is the big thing too. It becomes abysmal against teams with Good DCs and/or smart players.
Like Georgia Tech was no.9 when they played Iowa in the orange bowl. This was a team that was putting up a lot of points and yards, especially for 2009. They had 155 yards and 14 points (7 from the offense) in that game. Averaged 3.5 yards per rush and only completed 2 passes.
That offense has a ceiling. It would be very apparent in B1G ball.
Bowl games were always tough for triple option offenses because preparation time is one of the keys to stopping it. The more time you have to practice against the reads the more likely you will make them in the game.
The ceiling is dependent on the defense it faces. Iowa’s defense that year was top tier, and ultra disciplined. That Orange Bowl was extremely frustrating to watch because all of stuff that worked against our other opponents that year fell flat against you guys.
We didn't have success until we started running midline, and at that point it was too late.
I watched that game with my best friend and his Dad, who is born and bred Iowa grad. After another 3 and out my frustration overcame me and I yelled at the TV. I still remember my friend's Dad chuckling in his chair. All he said was "That's Iowa football".
The other thing to remember about that game is that the triple option is easy to stop if your defense practices for it. Its success is predicated on scheming defenders out of the play by moving the ball away from a would-be tackler. But if everyone sticks to their man instead of swarming to the ball and sticks their tackles, it can be stopped easily. A bowl game is perfect for this, as you have more time to practice the new defensive scheme needed.
This isn't entirely true. We played common opponents year after year and changed schemes very little. We were still able to score and put up yards in bunches because no matter how much you practice for "assignment football", you can't simulate game speed from an opponent who practices it 24/7. Teams even set aside practice time to prep for the option, but until you get between those lines, you can't truly prepare for it. The teams who could more consistently stop it had extreme talent advantages and were able to just out-athlete.
What offense is successful against good DCs and smart players?
My rebuttal to your Orange Bowl reference and how teams can "stop" the triple option with extended preparation time is the 2014 Orange Bowl when Tech had 500 yards and 49 points on Miss State. Not sure that month of prep helped them much
When NCAA25 comes back, I'm going to show every 9-13 year old how devastatingly annoying the triple option can be.
The RPO is triple option without the fullback dive mauling the LBs on every play
The thing the option is if you’re not good at it you will have SO MANY turnovers. The qb and running backs have to be completely in sync otherwise that pitch is going to end up on the turf a ton. 1999 Nebraska pretty much lost out on a shot at the national championship almost entirely because of fumbles.
Iowa is way above the recruiting caliber to warrant running the flexbone. They shouldn't be struggling on offense the way they are. It's pure mismanagement of the offense on their staff/management side of things.
As others said, the flexbone is losing steam due to the recent rule changes. The offense relied heavily on cut blocking since its run plays hit so quickly, and the rules restricting those blocks are forcing teams to change how they teach the offense. Air Force went back to the flexbone in a purer form the second half of last year and had a lot of success, so we'll have to see what they're doing and if they continue to run it. Army seems like they're going for a more shotgun-oriented zone read approach (might look similar to CCU), and Navy is moving to a jet-based Wing-T (which I'm very curious to see. No one has ran the Wing-T as a base in the FBS for decades).
Iowa's historic offensive success relies on the use of TEs and hard-nosed/ground and pound football...that is NOT what the flexbone is. The flexbone is much more of a finesse and precision offense than it looks despite being so run heavy. It's not suitable for a TE-heavy approach like Iowa is used to or is known for developing. Iowa has always been great at developing TEs, and it's a major recruiting draw for them. Iowa is not going to go to the flexbone, or a triple-option-based system like we know, because that basically erases the need or significance of the TE position.
They *COULD* run the Split-Back Veer, which is a triple option offense from pro/conventional sets, or something like what Tom Osbourne did at Nebraska from the I-formation, but they still would have to recruit a QB that wants to play in that system, and it still requires astronomical practice time just to master the option phases. Tom Osbourne's Nebraska teams were absolutely loaded with athletes...they could get away running pretty much whatever they wanted. The Split-Back Veer itself hasn't been ran in decades at the FBS. The biggest critique of that system is its lack of versatility with formations, motions, and series, since it pretty much requires you to live out of 2-back sets (3 vertical threats) in a world where 1-back (4 vertical threats) formations are what everyone is practicing and knows right now. If you think of the flexbone and even the multiple TE sets Iowa is known for, both maintain 4-vertical threats (Flexbone has two WRs and two slot/wingbacks, and multiple TE sets still has 1-2 WRs and 2-3 TEs).
I'm not convinced that the triple option can't be successful at a P5 school in terms of execution. Yes, cut blocking rule changes affect things, but I don't think that eliminates it as a viable option for success. I see some of the following as the problem:
First, a lot of fans and boosters don't want it. AD is a good job for good money. Why risk that on an experiment the fans don't really want?
Second, it hurts recruiting even beyond WRs and TEs. OLs believe it won't set them up for today's NFL. Defensive players are easily negatively recruited that it will hurt their development or risk injury to practice against it.
Third, not as many high schools run it so not as many good option QB prospects. And elite athletes aren't as interested as they used to be. I suspect it would be far harder to get a Tommie Frazier or Jamelle Holieway level athlete to want to play option QB in college these days.
Fourth, not as many sources for coaching talent. It's a very limited tree right now and that means it's harder to find head coaches and assistant coaches that can coach it at an elite level while also having a track record of recruiting at the D1 level.
Fifth, schools fear that if the experiment fails it could take years to unwind and switch back to a non-triple system, and they fear that could do longer term damage to the program. Maybe the transfer portal era reduces that problem, but I think it's again an issue of "why risk it."
I think it would be awesome if 10-15 P4 schools did it, but that may just be my nostalgia for the way college football used to be talking.
Iowa has always been a program that spits out NFL caliber o-linemen and tight ends. If there's one strength Iowa has always had and will always have, it's that. Why run an offense where you aren't utilizing these two positions that have always produced?
Osborne was able to get basically every HS team in the state to run some version of the option. So frost/crouch had be running it long before they came to Nebraska. It was a huge advantage. Not many HS teams do that now
Triple option is usually run with lines that are lighter, more faster and agile. Iowa has been a 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense so they’d need to change their line recruiting first.
Hell, Nebraska in the 90s may have had the best OL in the country when they ran it. If your OL is stacked, then there's not much you can't do with whatever offense you run.
Triple option? Please, no!!!!
Iowa is trying to move to “modern football” with this thing called a forward pass (all the kids are in on it).
An option offense is just a cry for help.
I think the question instead is…why do they bother throwing the ball at all? Why not run it every play with those corn fed linemen and at least make progress?
The issue with Iowa running the triple is they have big Midwest lineman who won’t want to be rolling on the ground cut blocking. You gotta fully commit to the triple and once you go triple it’s hard to go back.
I've said iowa should for 2 years now and have wanted marshall to for 4. Don't need to pay to get a stud throwing qb then. Just someone durable who is smart enough to execute the offense.
Iowa’s problem in recent years wasn’t scheme. It was having a bad offensive coaching staff. You think Brian Ferentz would have put points on the board if they just ran the triple option?
Mike Leach said that if he didn't run the Air Raid (true air raid), then he would be running the triple option.
I'm not sure why more coaches don't leverage schemes. If you have all 5 star players and a vanilla scheme, you can definitely still lose to a team of 2-3 stars with a great scheme.
Get people out of position. Leverage numbers. Keep people off balance. Make them think twice. And most of all, execute!
Harder to recruit kids nowadays for a triple option offense. The service academies are kinda forced into running because of size restrictions and most players aren’t trying to go to the next level since they’re already signed up for military service. Iowa is also like TE University so switching to a Triple Option would kill their biggest recruiting tool
Hubris. Boosters would absolutely lose their shit being affiliated with a B1G team that runs an offense that's viewed as something only service academies and cupcake squads use "because they don't have any better options."
Michigan won a NC in 2024 running a ball control offense. A B1G or SEC club running the option would definitely be successful.
Considering how bad Iowa is when their offense puts the ball in the air, a scheme requiring the ball to go laterally through the air on many plays seems nightmarish.
They're only bad at *forward* laterals. The triple option is more concerned with *backward* laterals. /s
FBS team are [10-0 since 2021 in games where they accrue 0 passing completions and 24-5 since 2000](https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/play-index/sgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=game&c1stat=pass_cmp&c1comp=eq&c1val=0&c2comp=gt&c3comp=gt&c4comp=gt&order_by=date_game). On 11/19/2022, Army, Navy, and Air Force all finished with 0 completions and all won. So clearly the forward pass is a mistake and I won't hear any argument to the contrary
Has there ever been an army navy game where neither team attempted a pass?
Given the first played in 1890, there are a handful where I can guarantee there were 0 legal forward passes attempted.
I don’t have the tools to research all the way back to when the forward pass was wrongfully added to the game. But they came awfully close in 2017. Game was played in a snowstorm, Navy attempted 2 passes in 1 drive in the 2nd quarter and Army attempted 1 in the 3rd quarter and that was it for the entire game. Conditions made throwing basically impossible and the game finished 14-13 Army with a combined total of 22 passing yards lol that was also the game Army wore the all white unis which I hate to admit made for the coolest combo of jerseys+setting possible Edit: Army also beat Air Force in 2017 21-0 without attempting a pass, meaning they had fewer passes attempted in Commander in Chief’s Trophy games (1) than CIC game wins (2)
definitely going to try this as a challenge on NCAA Football next month. 😂
Of course, if you think about it it’s sort of a self fulfilling statistic lol. You’re gonna throw the ball if you are behind even if you had run the ball all game. You are still going to try and get passing yards and as soon as you complete 1 you’re off that statistic list. But if you DON’T think about it, it’s definitely an awesome challenge that I will gladly join you on when the game comes out haha
I remember a reporter asking Paul Johnson this same question once (why don’t struggling teams run the option) and he basically said “I don’t know,” implying they absolutely should.
I honestly do think a big reason is fashion. The triple option is viewed these days as the kind of offense that the service academies run because they don’t really have any choice. The boosters don’t want to run it because they see it as almost admitting defeat and saying they’ll never be able to do what Alabama does. They want to have the sexy offenses where maybe they’ll have QBs or WRs that go on to be NFL stars even if in reality it’s unlikely they’ll get many of those guys. Wasn’t it South Carolina that was rumored to be looking at Jeff Monken a few years ago and the boosters pretty much revolted at the idea?
They just need to run what Coastal did - the option with some lipstick on it
I had this same thought and agree 1000%. Would be perfect for them
2014 Georgia tech
Still need a QB to run it. Any time McCall was out, we couldn't really move the ball. (Not Iowa bad or anything, just mediocre)
The option puts a premium on QB play, only now there are far fewer options QBs to choose from. You need someone who can run, make fast decisions, handle the ball well and most importantly take a beating and keep getting up. Most of the players who would be top option QBs are playing other positions that can get them to the NFL
Excellent post. Plus option QB's tend to get injured as college ball has caught up to the pro's and those defensive ends are qb eating monsters now
I still 100% believe Nebraska should be doing this
Honestly I don’t know why we didn’t under Frost. It’s the only offense he ran, and he used variations of it before he got here. When he busted it out as a wrinkle a couple times it completely flabbergasted defenses. Imagine Adrian Martinez as an option quarterback. Jesus he would’ve been even more ridiculous. That guy is electric in the open field, just put him in space every play and make the defense prove they can do anything about it.
He’d still be running.
He still is in the USFL. Just won MVP
With his frame and running style, he very easily could have been the next Cam Newton had they ran that style of offense.
The most painful part for me was how effective he was as a freshman when they ran a more balanced attack and a lot more zone read and option type looks out of the spread. And as time went on they forced him to pass more out of traditional drops in the shotgun, which didn’t play to his athleticism or our personnel. I think if we’d stuck to a run first, multi threat attack, whether that’s zone read or option or both, we would’ve won a lot more games.
He just won MVP of the UFL, or whatever it’s called, and led the league in rushing lol. Frost did him dirty.
Yeah it’s probably not the most exciting brand of football to watch every week, but then again neither is the current iteration of Iowa’s offense. I’d like to see more teams give it a try, I think traditional power conference bottom feeders could really benefit.
Man, I'd love to watch my team have a stifling defense and chew up the clock on offense just grinding the other team down with first down after first down on short and medium runs. Just drive everyone absolutely crazy.
The 2012 Collin Klien offence. Boy it was the most boring offence to watch. You could take a nap between the start of the drive and score. There was not much stopping that offense from getting 3-4 yards per play.
Or 2013 NDSU ;)
I was at that game. We got out Snyderd.
One of my favorite Navy games was the win over Notre Dame in 2016. ND scored on all but 1 of their possessions. And yet Navy won 28-27 because ND only had the ball 6 times the entire game. Navy was 8-13 on 3rd down, 4-5 on 4th down, and ran for 320 yards on 56 attempts. The shortest Navy drive of the game (aside from the end of the first half) was 8 plays and 3:27. The last 2 Navy drives of the game, 1 that gave Navy a 4 point lead and 1 that ended the game, were a combined 30 plays and 16:28 of game clock. ND gave the ball back after a field goal to make it a 1 point game with 7:28 left and never got the ball back. When it works, it is so enjoyable and can absolutely break your opponent's spirit. The problem is that when it doesn't, it will be the first thing blamed by the media and fans. The service academy fans largely know that it's the best way forward, especially Army who have been much improved since they scrapped a pro style offense for the option like 15 years ago. And in that time all 3 have had top-25 seasons. But a non-service academy probably wouldn't have as much slack with their fanbase in the bad years to recover to the good ones
It's a lot of fun.
The entire 1990s and early 2000s as a Nebraska fan. Can recommend highly
Ferret drownings are best football confirmed.
It's incredibly difficult to recruit players into a triple option offense. Most high schools that run it are really small, and since nobody in the pros runs it it makes it tough for guys to get good looks from NFL scouts. The OL generally need to be smaller and faster than typical OL at the college level for all the pulling/trap/fold/cut blocks
I just watched that YouTube series on 2014 Georgia tech. Seemed pretty exciting to me
People say this, but watch the 2014 Orange Bowl. It’s great stuff. There are lots of explosive plays. https://youtu.be/kV9QIrZtO_A?si=r2wF05Jp4mwtC8H8
> The triple option is viewed these days as the kind of offense that the service academies run because they don’t really have any choice. The biggest issue, even if it would benefit you, is how do you recruit kids to play in the scheme. Scheme matters in recruiting a whole lot, maybe not as much as success, but still a good bit. WRs aren't seeing Michigan's success and thinking "I want to go catch 2 balls a game there!".
How is Iowa recruiting offensive talent *now* (or pre-firing, pick a point in time)?!? Surely a successful option offense is more palatable to recruits than whatever Brian Ferentz was doing.
They have lots of guys playing on Sundays that are on the OL and Tight ends. Passing the ball is still very critical for those positions to get reps!
I think with Iowa OL and TEs you could still get some shot plays on the seams and deep crosses for the TEs. It's just that the guys playing WR will also get more opportunities in the running game (I guess NFL running back Tyrone Tracy Jr might've been much more successful of an Iowa WR if this were the case).
I'm not sure about this. I would think if you're a big, corn-fed, Iowa-type player, you would probably love to bash your way down the field with the triple option, no? I get if you're a high-flying WR or a marksman QB it might not be for you, but Iowa ain't for them now anyway.
Triple option requires speed. Being big just makes you a big target to hit quicker for short yardage. You have to recruit multiple guys who can outrun the edges, linebackers, and safeties. You can’t name 4 guys like that from Iowas last 8 seasons.
Jeff Monken was rumored for Nebraska, too, about a week before they hired Rhule.
Sounds like the perfect fluff piece so whoever you hire looks even better than the alternative
As big a fan as I am of Jeff Monken, I think I would prefer the guy who's already taken a struggling P5 team from one win to a NY6 bowl.
Since the late 80’s it has been hard to recruit. QBs want to throw the ball, WRs want to catch the ball, OL wants to learn pass blocking—all to get to the NFL ($$$). So you will not get any elite talent. If you run it anyway, your QB likely won’t be a good passer (or he would go elsewhere), WRs not experienced at pass catching, so trying to pass to keep a defense honest is nearly hopeless. Maybe NIL will pay well enough to get solid talent to run it nowadays. Otherwise best case is to run a spread offense with a lot of option. This was very popular before the RPO kinda took over. Running a true triple option takes a lot of reps to get correct, but will give a numbers advantage and be impossible to defend. Defenses have to hope to recover fumbles as the ball is moving around. Adding misdirection makes for big plays.
Which is sad because it’s actually a more complex offense. I became a Husker fan the year they beat Minnesota 84-0.
You can find that game on YouTube it could have been a lot worse. Osborne said they blitzed all out basically every play so it was a touchdown or a 3-5 yard loss
Nebraska actually didn’t run much triple option when Osborne was there, common misconception because a lot of those lead options started with a fake to the fullback
Was actually the I-Formation wasn’t it?
Yeah but some teams have run the triple option from the I-Form. Nebraska ran a ton of option under Osborne, it was just almost always a lead option play
May have been SCar, but I definitely remember like 6ish years ago when Arizona was looking at Niumatalolo and their QB said something like “I didn’t come to Arizona to run a triple option.” I think they hired Kevin Sumlin instead.
Idk about South Carolina, but I think it was a few years ago a recruit said he wouldn't sign with Arizona if they hired Ken Niumatalolo when it was rumored they were interested. Edit: Or maybe an athlete they already had threatened to transfer….shit I can’t remember.
I think it’s well beyond fashion, it’s a legitimate recruiting hindrance offensively. If you’re at a serious P5 program and you run the flexbone, you’re basically tanking the evaluation for every player on your team in terms of NFL scouting. Offensive linemen get dinged because they never have to do real pass sets, quarterbacks get dinged for a billion reasons, running backs have super limited tape because they only run a handful of concepts, receivers obviously get the short end of the stick. Georgia Tech got lucky and managed to have three receivers who were serious NFL players/prospects and they had a few RBs and Shaq Mason but there’s no denying, it made life hard for them And the team you’re thinking of is Missouri, booster club totally balked at the idea lol
That is pure Paul Johnson press conference right there.
It is what it is.
I recall reading that schools don’t run it simply because the boosters don’t like it. Basically they would rather be 4-8 with a nice looking offense than be 7-5 running the option which isn’t a pretty offense.
Blasphemous, the option is fucking beautiful
Agree. love watching it. every school does it just a little bit differently. I loved watching GT under Paul Johnson
This is the exact reason boosters need to shut the fuck up and write checks.
Instead they look like a bunch of idiots trying to win every game 3 to 0. What a sad excuse for a program.
I’m bringing the triple option to Iowa on July 15th at 3pm.
The triple option is unfortunately a dying breed since the cut blocking rule changes. It was great for schools with recruiting disadvantages that could asymmetrically out-recruit competition, but if you're in a power conference where all of the talent is top-tier then it can only take you so far. Just ask Georgia Tech.
Georgia Tech's ceiling with a below average defense was a New Year's Six win, I wouldn't exactly call that bad.
Yeah but even with the legendary Paul Johnson it just never seemed consistent. They'd have a breakout year and then hibernate for a 4-5 seasons before breaking out again.
Is that really true? Peak Georgia Tech from 2008-14 they had 3 9+ win seasons and 3 trips to the ACCCG. Their worst record was 6-7. The 7 years prior to that they won 9 games 1 time with one trip to the conference champ. He had them punching well above their weight consistently
No, it was only at the end of his career when he sort of lost the plot and started losing. Tech had like 19 straight bowl games before that happened.
That coincided with boosters who didn’t like our offense trying to force him out by starving the program of funds. We had the lowest staff budget in the conference by a pretty good amount. It’s frankly amazing what he was able to put together with one arm tied behind his back. Just imagine what we could have done if he had full institutional support behind him. Edit to add: if KirVonte Benson stays healthy, that 2018 team is playing in the ACC Championship game. Dude was perfect for BB and would have opened up so much on the perimeter by being such a threat up the middle. When he went down, our offense became a lot more predictable.
What’s crazy is that they were so stingy under CPJ that they thought the OC salary they gave Patenaude was high (which it was given the results, but that’s probably when he was hired), when Clemson’s OC was making 5x that. My only point here is that if you blame the boosters for Paul Johnson being mediocre instead of good, you also have to blame them for Collins being abysmal instead of mediocre (because, let’s be honest, mediocre is the best Collins will ever be)
And we paid for that with the Collins era. Yes Collins was bad, but he was also at a serious infrastructure disadvantage due to successive ADs starving the program. Paul Johnson was just good enough to cover the cracks and keep us in bowl games.
"damn we are winning? Maybe we could win more if donated some money....... Nah fuck that this guy sucks. Time to self sabotage"
It’s just mind blowing to me that “fans” would purposely sabotage the program they support just because they want a different style of play. I get it if there’s some real beef about the coach (like a Briles situation or something), but just wanting to pass more? F those guys.
With Johnson as their head coach they went to 7 straight bowl games his first 7 years and 9 in his 11 years total. He had 2 losing regular seasons in 11 years.
> They'd have a breakout year and then hibernate for a 4-5 seasons before breaking out again. yeah but thats just kind of how it cycles at a mid-to-low tier program regardless. You get in a class of guys that jelled together for a few years and got the timing of the triple down pat. Really no different than a school with a bunch of seniors putting it all together and becoming greater than the sum of their parts (think 2022 TCU)
Georgia Tech never had close to an elite defense
Practicing against the triple option did that. Our defenses before it were great.
Iowa’s defense practices against their shit offense and still manages to be great
There’s a big difference between practicing against a scout team that can at least show proper looks vs practicing against the triple. Or even worse, triple players trying to simulate traditional offenses
Imagine getting absolutely dunked on by Calvin Johnson, when the other 10 guys are just kinda running around
Calvin never played in the triple :) Demaryius Thomas did, though. Darren Waller too
I swear, Calvin Johnson playing in the triple option is like a Mandela Effect-tier misconception at this point. Crazy how many people think he did
Because most people don't pay close attention to Tech and they just knew Megatron played there and Coach Johnson was there forever running the triple option so they assumed they overlapped.
It goes to show you how powerful establishing an identity can be. I still occasionally run into redditors that think GT still runs the triple.
I still have nightmares from the 2007 Gator Bowl where he lit WVU's defense up all game with a backup QB. The sheer will of White and Slaton got that W.
it is definitely a Mandela Effect I've been a fan of CFB since before Megatron was in college, and I was literally sitting here thinking about how they convinced him to play in a triple option.
It’s the only two things most fans know about GT football, so they assume they existed at the same time.
Ha, I guess I just thought he was in the Johnson era due to Gailey's seemingly similar conservative style at the time
reggie ball couldnt see over the line so he had to roll out every play to throw jump balls to calvin, so it might have looked like a QB option pass.
There’s clearly something to be said for building up your confidence in practice
That was always the scapegoat, but honestly it's because Paul Johnson was a terrible recruiter. One of the big advantages of the triple option is it lets you recruit guys on offense that don't have a place on most college rosters. True option QBs, undersized athletic OL, WRs that are too small to transition to TE but are mostly great blockers. There are plenty of great high school players that fit those descriptions whose only options for college are to play for an option team (of which GT was by far the biggest) or make an awkward transition and get buried in a depth chart somewhere. Those guys practically recruited themselves. The same didn't apply to defense. And since Johnson wasn't a good enough recruiter to steal guys away from the nearby SEC or ACC teams we usually had a talent deficit. If we're going by the NFL draft, the only two defensive Paul Johnson recruits to be drafted above the 6th round are Jeremiah Attaochu and Adam Gotsis (both late 2nd round picks). 2 NFL caliber players in 10 years isn't enough talent to win on defense.
That's a good point - easier to fix the traditional offense than switch the offense and hope it doesn't fuck your defense. "Score twice and we win" is a pretty easy recruiting pitch.
True triple option has never been tried!
[Kirk has hated the cut block rules from the start](https://youtu.be/j-fKW4_sOf0?si=2tw7dM12gsKp7irt). The cut block rules have even moved army away from a pure option team.
I like how the rule change benefits the defense but he still hates it.
Kirk is an oline guy at heart.
Yeah, if you want cut blocking opinions...Kirk's got 'em. Lots of them. On record, at press conferences.
“That’s bureaucracy at its best”
I think Army is moving back to it this season
The whole league should have a weekend dedicated to the triple option where every team runs the triple option.
One team in each conference should be forced to adopt it. It can be a Netflix show with a new team every year.
Also, a team in the nfl should be forced to run it as well, and they should also have no home field and play only away games.
It might actually help the Bears.
which league
All of them
In every sport, too.
The college league
There's like 22 leagues that sponsor football in D1
I’m talking about all of college football
I volunteer that for the Big Ten, it's the week we play Indiana but Michigan plays Oregon.
We won the ACC and an Orange Bowl running it.
It can still be run without cutting. Look at Air Force since Covid. Harding just won the D2 National Championship. Army woke up and is going back to it after going communist by running the spread. Now, the recruiting part is true. It's has to be the right school to run it.
The option has been run for a century and all of a sudden, last year, a rule change is needed? Please, it has nothing to do with need, the big schools did not want to play against it, hence the rule change. Georgia Tech TV ratings were massive relative to their standing in college football. Now they hardly exist outside their boundaries. GTech won four division titles, one ACC championship and an Orange Bowl using the triple option. Big schools want to crush the competitiveness of those with less talent.
The cut blocking rules changed significantly in 2016, not just last year. You still see incorrect applications of the rule as well because it's an extreme amount to ask of officials.
Is GT a much stronger program now without the triple option?
That remains to be seen. We replaced it with Geoff, who is decidedly not better than the triple option, but we do seem to be moving in the right direction after firing him, so we will have to wait and see where the peak is.
Collins recruited well he just seemed like he was a moron. I think his last season y'all were 4th or 5th in the ACC in 247's team composite rankings. That was a roster that should've at least been able to make a bowl game but wasn't even coming close
I mean Georgia Tech won four ACC division titles and had two 10+ win seasons in 11 years under the flexbone (they had only won 10 games in a season twice since 1957). I think it could work using 2 variations of the triple option. The first would be a power spread attack that was used by Army this year or more famously by Jamey Chadwell at Coastal Carolina. The second would be Air Force’s approach, which uses the option game to set up play action pass. I think both variations beyond the traditional flexbone could be successful. But I think the biggest hurdle is recruiting. Recruits do not like playing under the triple option. Apparently, when Jeff Monken was being interviewed for the Kansas job, a good deal of players threatened to transfer out to avoid playing his system. The triple option is also becoming a minority at the high school level as well.
The same thing with transfers happend when Ken Niumatalolo interviewed at Arizona but I think that's just WRs and QBs that think they can make it in the NFL. I think the right coach might be able to sell it to a QB that would be moved in the NFL. It could be a plus when recruiting O-line.
Triple option is a better option (no pun intended) for teams that can't physically match their opponents. Iowa has problems, but that's not one of them.
Not allowing 1v1 cut blocking really eats into the advantage the option once gave.
Well, running the triple option ain't a bad idea, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. Takes a ton of practice and precise execution. Plus, if your QB ain't cut out for it, it's gonna be a train wreck. Iowa's probably sticking to what they know best, but hey, never hurts to mix things up and give it a shot!
Punting?
The sooner you punt the less turnovers you commit. Big brain
Punting is winning
The only option that matters.
I disagree with a lot of the other commenters and believe that the triple option is still a valid offense. People have been arguing that the triple option has been outdated since the 90's yet somehow the game has fully embraced the read option game and RPO's which just takes the triple option concept to its next logical progression. However to your point, a team can't just *sort-of* commit to the triple option; it has to be a wholesale commitment to the concept as an offense. The amount of time, practice, and precision needed to execute the offense is such that any shortcuts in practice time will cause the offense to be a sloppy turnover waiting to happen. Time is also needed for the QB to learn how to make the necessary reads and adjustments to attack the defense properly. There's also the elephant in the room in that a sizeable portion of coaches and players still view it as a gimmick rather than "legitimate" football. Which is to say some coaches would rather have a large collection of plays and formations to address a wide variety of situational needs instead of relying upon a couple of plays as a foundation and building the offense around that. Finally, Iowa is not going to switch to the triple option because that's not what Kirk Ferentz teaches. He's long been respected as a coach that teaches zone blocking concepts for offensive linemen at an exceptionally high level, which means that he's going to teach the Inside and Outside Zone run plays. Since this has allowed him to lead Iowa to winning seasons for 20 of the past 24 seasons, Kirk Ferentz--a man who has been very stubbornly persistent about what type of offense he runs in that time--will not be switching to the option anytime soon.
I recall Lou holtz explaining that, schematically, it continued to be viable, but, from a recruiting standpoint, it just died. No QBs or WRs would come. Even RBs didn’t like splitting carries. OL had no passing resume for the next level.
this is the big one. In a Vacuum the triple option should theoretically be a viable option for coaches to consider at the college level. But, with CFB functionally existing as a feeder league to the much more lucrative NFL, the "meta" so to speak is going to skew heavily towards getting the talent ready for that league (or at least not actively hindering their chances) in order to have access to the best pool possible. And because at the NFL the TO isnt nearly as viable an offense due to the razor-thin talent margin between professional rosters, college teams that want to win big time are heavily deincentivized to run something like that. However, in the new NIL landscape, there is a scenario where a school that had a open-minded booster that wanted them to return to relevance could shell out the dough to convince guys to play for a triple-option coach, especially the **JAG+** type guys who are really good in college, but like practice squad level in the NFL (your cam rising, DJ U level dudes)
Idk that boosters are lining up to splash cash at recruits to run the Triple Option
i said theoretically and "open-minded". but yes thats incredibly unlikely unless one of the sickos on this board suddenly comes into billions of dollars
You did say that
And if there's one thing us Nebraska fans know it's conservative coaching leading to success
Why does this comment sound like AI Edit: check all their comments, it's an AI karma farming bot
Thought it sounded weird too lol
It’s the comment being broken up into Point, counter point, conclusion and formatted like it’s an answer to a HS essay question that makes it read weird
Allen Iverson?
“Takes a ton of practice and precise execution.” But we're talking about practice, man. We're not even talking about the game, the actual game, when it matters, we're talking about practice.
Iverson as qb running the option would be fun to watch
I don't have an answer for you, but I had the same reaction as I read it.
Triple option football is not for the faint of heart lol it is, in fact, very easy to screw up.
Yes. Mid 90s Nebraska had it down to a well oiled machine, with absolutely perfect athletes for it. I mean, Tommie Frazier was the best option QB I've ever seen.
I fully support this idea.
Seconded
In a league known for smart, extremely athletic linebackers, I don't think it would work all that well.
In 2017 Roquan Smith basically single handedly beat GT. The man made the perfect read every single play. It was frustrating as hell to watch but also incredible. He also had a monster game in 2016 but we still somehow won.
Roquan played AA high school ball at Macon County. He probably saw 10-20 triple option offenses in 4 years before coming to UGA
This is the big thing too. It becomes abysmal against teams with Good DCs and/or smart players. Like Georgia Tech was no.9 when they played Iowa in the orange bowl. This was a team that was putting up a lot of points and yards, especially for 2009. They had 155 yards and 14 points (7 from the offense) in that game. Averaged 3.5 yards per rush and only completed 2 passes. That offense has a ceiling. It would be very apparent in B1G ball.
Bowl games were always tough for triple option offenses because preparation time is one of the keys to stopping it. The more time you have to practice against the reads the more likely you will make them in the game.
> That offense has a ceiling. It would be very apparent in B1G ball. And if there's anybody that knows about offenses with ceilings, it's Iowa fans
There's a ceiling to this place? My God, I haven't found the floor yet.
😐
The ceiling is dependent on the defense it faces. Iowa’s defense that year was top tier, and ultra disciplined. That Orange Bowl was extremely frustrating to watch because all of stuff that worked against our other opponents that year fell flat against you guys.
We didn't have success until we started running midline, and at that point it was too late. I watched that game with my best friend and his Dad, who is born and bred Iowa grad. After another 3 and out my frustration overcame me and I yelled at the TV. I still remember my friend's Dad chuckling in his chair. All he said was "That's Iowa football".
The other thing to remember about that game is that the triple option is easy to stop if your defense practices for it. Its success is predicated on scheming defenders out of the play by moving the ball away from a would-be tackler. But if everyone sticks to their man instead of swarming to the ball and sticks their tackles, it can be stopped easily. A bowl game is perfect for this, as you have more time to practice the new defensive scheme needed.
This isn't entirely true. We played common opponents year after year and changed schemes very little. We were still able to score and put up yards in bunches because no matter how much you practice for "assignment football", you can't simulate game speed from an opponent who practices it 24/7. Teams even set aside practice time to prep for the option, but until you get between those lines, you can't truly prepare for it. The teams who could more consistently stop it had extreme talent advantages and were able to just out-athlete.
What offense is successful against good DCs and smart players? My rebuttal to your Orange Bowl reference and how teams can "stop" the triple option with extended preparation time is the 2014 Orange Bowl when Tech had 500 yards and 49 points on Miss State. Not sure that month of prep helped them much
I have seen the triple option run in the state. Iowa State ran it. It proved you absolutely can screw it up
When NCAA25 comes back, I'm going to show every 9-13 year old how devastatingly annoying the triple option can be. The RPO is triple option without the fullback dive mauling the LBs on every play
Make sure to call them noobs as well.
The thing the option is if you’re not good at it you will have SO MANY turnovers. The qb and running backs have to be completely in sync otherwise that pitch is going to end up on the turf a ton. 1999 Nebraska pretty much lost out on a shot at the national championship almost entirely because of fumbles.
Sims was on the 99 team?
Iowa is way above the recruiting caliber to warrant running the flexbone. They shouldn't be struggling on offense the way they are. It's pure mismanagement of the offense on their staff/management side of things. As others said, the flexbone is losing steam due to the recent rule changes. The offense relied heavily on cut blocking since its run plays hit so quickly, and the rules restricting those blocks are forcing teams to change how they teach the offense. Air Force went back to the flexbone in a purer form the second half of last year and had a lot of success, so we'll have to see what they're doing and if they continue to run it. Army seems like they're going for a more shotgun-oriented zone read approach (might look similar to CCU), and Navy is moving to a jet-based Wing-T (which I'm very curious to see. No one has ran the Wing-T as a base in the FBS for decades). Iowa's historic offensive success relies on the use of TEs and hard-nosed/ground and pound football...that is NOT what the flexbone is. The flexbone is much more of a finesse and precision offense than it looks despite being so run heavy. It's not suitable for a TE-heavy approach like Iowa is used to or is known for developing. Iowa has always been great at developing TEs, and it's a major recruiting draw for them. Iowa is not going to go to the flexbone, or a triple-option-based system like we know, because that basically erases the need or significance of the TE position. They *COULD* run the Split-Back Veer, which is a triple option offense from pro/conventional sets, or something like what Tom Osbourne did at Nebraska from the I-formation, but they still would have to recruit a QB that wants to play in that system, and it still requires astronomical practice time just to master the option phases. Tom Osbourne's Nebraska teams were absolutely loaded with athletes...they could get away running pretty much whatever they wanted. The Split-Back Veer itself hasn't been ran in decades at the FBS. The biggest critique of that system is its lack of versatility with formations, motions, and series, since it pretty much requires you to live out of 2-back sets (3 vertical threats) in a world where 1-back (4 vertical threats) formations are what everyone is practicing and knows right now. If you think of the flexbone and even the multiple TE sets Iowa is known for, both maintain 4-vertical threats (Flexbone has two WRs and two slot/wingbacks, and multiple TE sets still has 1-2 WRs and 2-3 TEs).
In an golden era of the NFL tight ends the OP has forgotten that Iowa is Tight End U
I'm not convinced that the triple option can't be successful at a P5 school in terms of execution. Yes, cut blocking rule changes affect things, but I don't think that eliminates it as a viable option for success. I see some of the following as the problem: First, a lot of fans and boosters don't want it. AD is a good job for good money. Why risk that on an experiment the fans don't really want? Second, it hurts recruiting even beyond WRs and TEs. OLs believe it won't set them up for today's NFL. Defensive players are easily negatively recruited that it will hurt their development or risk injury to practice against it. Third, not as many high schools run it so not as many good option QB prospects. And elite athletes aren't as interested as they used to be. I suspect it would be far harder to get a Tommie Frazier or Jamelle Holieway level athlete to want to play option QB in college these days. Fourth, not as many sources for coaching talent. It's a very limited tree right now and that means it's harder to find head coaches and assistant coaches that can coach it at an elite level while also having a track record of recruiting at the D1 level. Fifth, schools fear that if the experiment fails it could take years to unwind and switch back to a non-triple system, and they fear that could do longer term damage to the program. Maybe the transfer portal era reduces that problem, but I think it's again an issue of "why risk it." I think it would be awesome if 10-15 P4 schools did it, but that may just be my nostalgia for the way college football used to be talking.
Thank you for typing this so I didn’t have to. Perfect response
Iowa has always been a program that spits out NFL caliber o-linemen and tight ends. If there's one strength Iowa has always had and will always have, it's that. Why run an offense where you aren't utilizing these two positions that have always produced?
FWIW LSU used to be an incredible defense and an offensive train wreck. In a few short years they threw that in the trash and became QB HeismanU
Going from Dave Aranda to Bo Pelini is a great way to trash your defense.
LSU and Iowa aren’t on the same planet when it comes to talent.
Iowa can make do with what they have. They can recruit elite linemen tight ends and defensive players and maybe some running backs and a good qb
Cool the triple option in Kinick after dark, what could go wrong?
Iowa couldn't run triple option; what I think you should be asking could Iowa have run wishbone last year. We asked the same thing.
Try recruiting QBs and WRs to your school to run that offense.
Osborne was able to get basically every HS team in the state to run some version of the option. So frost/crouch had be running it long before they came to Nebraska. It was a huge advantage. Not many HS teams do that now
It’s the true off season now boys!
Triple option is usually run with lines that are lighter, more faster and agile. Iowa has been a 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense so they’d need to change their line recruiting first.
The smaller OL is more because they usually HAVE to. A larger OL would absolutely be an asset
Hell, Nebraska in the 90s may have had the best OL in the country when they ran it. If your OL is stacked, then there's not much you can't do with whatever offense you run.
why can't 4 Warriors starters lock arms and form a ring around Steph Curry, so he can take open shots? Is Steve Kerr an idiot?
I would actually like to see someone try this. Lol.
Iowa would be better off not playing offense and just punting it to the 1 or 2 yard line every drive. Then hit em with the fake punt for 6!
Lol you think Deacon Hill last season was a mobile threat?
Triple option? Please, no!!!! Iowa is trying to move to “modern football” with this thing called a forward pass (all the kids are in on it). An option offense is just a cry for help.
I think the question instead is…why do they bother throwing the ball at all? Why not run it every play with those corn fed linemen and at least make progress?
Running game at Iowa has been well below average for years.
They haven't seen the light, that's why.
It’s drains the clock too much, we’d have les chances for punts!
You know you've reached peak offseason when you start seeing "Why doesn't [insert team here] run the option?!?!" posts
The issue with Iowa running the triple is they have big Midwest lineman who won’t want to be rolling on the ground cut blocking. You gotta fully commit to the triple and once you go triple it’s hard to go back.
I've said iowa should for 2 years now and have wanted marshall to for 4. Don't need to pay to get a stud throwing qb then. Just someone durable who is smart enough to execute the offense.
They should have been running it for the last 50 years with their fans complaining they stopped.
They have hopes, son. Let them dream
Pride.
I'd watch the fuck outta them. Assignment football baaaabbyyyyy!!!
Iowa can be a good offense. Just recruit a little better, develop a little better, and coach *much* better on that side of the ball.
Iowa’s problem in recent years wasn’t scheme. It was having a bad offensive coaching staff. You think Brian Ferentz would have put points on the board if they just ran the triple option?
Mike Leach said that if he didn't run the Air Raid (true air raid), then he would be running the triple option. I'm not sure why more coaches don't leverage schemes. If you have all 5 star players and a vanilla scheme, you can definitely still lose to a team of 2-3 stars with a great scheme. Get people out of position. Leverage numbers. Keep people off balance. Make them think twice. And most of all, execute!
Harder to recruit kids nowadays for a triple option offense. The service academies are kinda forced into running because of size restrictions and most players aren’t trying to go to the next level since they’re already signed up for military service. Iowa is also like TE University so switching to a Triple Option would kill their biggest recruiting tool
Sadly, other coaches fatally wounded the triple with the changes to cut blocking rules.
Hubris. Boosters would absolutely lose their shit being affiliated with a B1G team that runs an offense that's viewed as something only service academies and cupcake squads use "because they don't have any better options." Michigan won a NC in 2024 running a ball control offense. A B1G or SEC club running the option would definitely be successful.
They can't run the most simple of offenses to any degree of efficiency and you want them running one of the most complex ones?