Really, people, this is a very interesting thread, for a general topic that has been discussed, argued, debated and literally been fought about by almost anyone with a football interest I would say. There are basic elements of truth and accuracy in virtually every post, even though there is apparent violent disagreement in most.
In the big picture, TO tried the more wide open, 'pro style' passing game in the 70s with QBs like Ferragamo and Humm. It worked but after the rumbling and grumbling got a little too close for job security comfort reasons, Osborne saw the dominance by Switzer's incredible wishbone teams as too much to take. He adapted and changed in a big way, going with players like Turner Gill and installing the option and focusing on the best dam running attack he could muster, short of the wishbone. I would speculate he might have gone to the 'bone' but he had come from a passing mindset (he was a WR in the pros for a short time you may recall) and a decade of passing. He saw the biggest glaring weakness of the wishbone was the near complete absence of a real passing game. OU got the best dam big linemen and lightning fast, elusive RBs and a 'wishbone magician' to run their offense. It was, and in my view remains, the most potent offensive attack ever devised in football. To this day, there really haven't been offenses any better, over a long term, consistant basis, that OU's wishbone. Before Switzer, they developed it to the highest level and then Barry 'perfected' it really by adding, in Switzer's own words, 'the very best athletes money could buy"! Other than rewrite the record books for the number of fumbles an offense could commit in a single game and still rush for over 600 yards and roll uip 60 plus points. A great wishbone would likely still be a winning offensive approach today. Of course, the 'experts' would criticize it as out moded, antiquated, ineffective, etc. This would only be the case because the players installed would not be 'the best money could buy' and as a result it would be 'average'.
TO might well have thrown the ball more than he did if not for the adverse weather. He preferred to avoid those awful games like we had last year with Purdue with gail force winds and sleet, rain, snow, etc. If we played down in 'Bama, where Bear Bryant also loved that wishbone offense, it would have been different.
I think Osborne tried to pick as much of the good of the wishbone approach and blend in some passing to keep the defense a little more honest and be more prepared to match up with some of the fast defenses he would have to face in the bowl games (Miami, Florida, etc). He wanted the ability to pass, if he had to, but was gonna run the ball as much as possible and force the opponent to stop us. Few could really and when the defense loaded the box, he would hit them with a few passes, often most successfully out of option or play action type plays, Osborne liked to throw to bail us out of a 3 and very long (3rd and 7 plus) but rarely converted those 3rd and 18 s because we just didn't throw the ball well enough and those were high risk plays where interceptions and sacks often resulted. I recall the offense Osborne ran often being called the 'Osbone'. Other programs that ran the wishbone and variations of the 'option' attack exceptionally well were Texas and Notre Dame. Many national championships were accomplished with this approach. Without fact checking with a bunch of tedious research, I would venture a guess that wishbone and fundamentally option based offenses, have won as many 'national titles' in the past 50 years (the 'modern era' shall we call it?) than any other type.
The most important thing, with any offense really, is to pick one and just run it extremely well. Execution at the highest level. Repetitions and more repetitions. Reload instead of retool. You build a top program over time by installing, recruiting to fit that system like crazy, and then sticking with it until you perfect it. Texas Tech, for example under Leach, installed an all out passing attack that became very lethal. Houston had a wild passing offense that racked up incredible numbers at one time as well by throwing it about 90% of the time. The trouble with the passing oriented attack, unless you play in the deep south or inside a dome, is the weather. Wind, rain, etc just take a beautiful pass and turn it into an interception or dead play. Hand offs and short ptiches can functional pretty well in almost any conditions, although when you get to the level of OU in the Switzer bone, fumbles are almost routine. You overcome this, of course, by scoring early and often. OU rarely punted in the glory days because, unless they fumbled, they scored.
The Big Ten plays in bad weather for about half the season some years. Three yards and a cloud of astroturf was the best descrption of the Big Ten's offenses for decades, running primarily out of the power I, 'pro style' offense as they did. Nebraska and Urban Meyer have changed the Big Ten the last 6 years. Why? Because of national perception and recruiting that has resulted from said perception. The Big Ten has all but caught up to the mighty SEC in this regard. I believe the Nebraska 'brand' changed the prevailing winds in favor of the Big Ten and away from the Big 12 which was the SEC rival for the time we were in that conference. Coincedence? Maybe but I think not.
I think Nebraska slipped from the elites under Solich's reign because he was NOT recruiting for any number of reasons and because of too much emphasis on the QB carrying the ball (see Eric Crouch and Jamal Loard for evidence). Solich was not the 'closer' that Tom was for many reasons beyond Solich's control. We didn't find the elite athletes. Nebraska's best H.S. players were not as many nor as good and that hurt. Scholarship changes, the cost of education for walk ons, serious competition in recruiting for Nebraska players, etc. all contributed as well. Our walk ons were once 3 star type players and became 'no star' practice guys. But weak competition in practice led to poor game results as well.
Bill Callahan was NOT a college level coach, although he is a tremendous football coach and 'mind', especially in offensive lines. I believe he is still coaching there at Dallas Cowboys who have a great line this year. He was a great 'two minute' passing in WCO style coach (as good as ever) but didn't understand the college game at all in terms of program building, etc. He also recruited offense players too heavily as compared to defense. Tom Osborne had a penchant for taking the best athletes and playing them on the offensive side until the 90s when he had plenty to go around and let McBride have some too. Great players playing hard with good schemes = great teams. Bo Pelinis was a pass defender and he recruited accordingly. Touchdowns sell tickets and make fans happy but defense wins championships. Fans want both.
Riley,it seems to me, understands it all and is an excellent football mind and can in fact win championships at the college level, if he has enough talent across his team to do so. He needs about 25 more top notch players and several better assistant coaches. Whether he can or will get them is another question. I remaind hopeful but am concerned this year's class is coming down to the wire a half dozen short of the goal. We need to win two more games this year and land a couple surprises and finish out strong. Not sure it can happen as injuries have taken a big toll. Time to shine is today. We shall see. Sorry to all you guys who hate my long, verbose comments but I feel it is best to explain in detail my reasoning as some like to misread or misconstrue things here.
