Single back option offense without a running QB

One of the difficulties of running a run-n-shoot or spread offense was the lack of a true option game out of a four wide receiver set. Yes, you could run speed option with the QB and RB, or even a triple option using the RB as the dive player and a motioning WR as the pitch man, but you then lost the advantage of having four WRs in a pattern.
The solution to this problem was the creation of the Dart series, which gave the offensive line the advantage of zone-blocked double teams on the playside, while leaving the backside DE, the read man, unblocked. The QB read the unblocked DE, and either gave the ball to the RB, who attacked the playside 1-tech, or he kept, and ran a sweep outside the crashing DE. You could run inside and outsize zone, as well as traps, in the Dart series.
The problem then became what to do when you didn't have an incredibly mobile QB. Defenses could tell their Ends to crash every time, forcing the Take read by the QB, and giving their LBs a free shot at a lumbering QB.
Using Orbit motion, I think I may have found a solution to this problem.

One of the wide receivers will go in motion as the QB calls the plays; when the ball is snapped, the orbiting receiver speeds back and around into the backfield in a half-circle motion, like a planet in orbit, gaining depth and speed. The QB fakes the hand-off to the RB, who crosses in front of him to sell the fake and runs behind the trap block of the backside guard, as the line blocks this play the same as they would a Dart Trap. The playside DE now has a decision; he can crash down to stop the trap, or he can come upfield and attack the QB. Both decisions are wrong. As the orbiting receiver hits the outside of his arc to playside, the QB simply tosses the ball to the receiver, like a normal sweep play. The orbiting back is far enough outside the DE that he can't reach hm as he speeds past the line of scrimmage, and into the secondary.


The A-receiver goes in orbit motion around the backfield, receives the toss, and sweeps upfield

The advantage of this play is that it doesn't require a read by the QB, you can just use a Give (for the Trap) or Pitch playcall, so you don't have to teach a read. The QB doesn't have to learn the footwork or the technique to run option, nor does he have to attack the DE, putting himself in jeopardy. This play also takes advantage of a speed burner at WR, and allows every single one of your WRs to become a possible ballcarrier in the running game.
With a Trap option for the RB, Toss for any of the four WRs, and a Keep option if you do have a mobile QB, you have a nice robust series of 6 plays off of that one motion. And we haven't even looked at using counter motion to cut back and use the trap blocking backside.

Criteria for greatness in college football

You know, there are a lot of fans and sportswriters who call a player at different positions 'great', without really defining greatness. Often, we end up with a player who has less than impressive statistics being called 'great', or even 'the best in the nation at his position', simply b/c a sportswriter believed something a coach said about the player, and doesn't know enough about football to intelligently disagree with that coach's assessment.

I have some criteria for greatness, statistical rules I think we should hold a player to before we call him 'great':

• Quarterback: Must pass for over 2500 yds, minimum, and average more than 200 yds total offense per game, minimum. For example, texas' Colt McCoy, he of the sub-200 yds passing average per game, is not great.
  
• Running back: Must average at least 5 yds per carry to be considered great. Must average 100 yds per game over the course of a season. Only exceptions are if the running back in question is playing behind an injury-depleted offensive line, after having shown greatness in a previous season.
  
• Wide receiver: Must have over 1000 yds receiving in a season. Only exception is if the WR is in a true spread offense, with 3 or more other receivers averaging over 700 yds receiving, also. In that case, he must have a minimum of 40 receptions for 800 yds, or 20 yds per catch or better.
  
• Offensive Line: I'm kind of simplifying this, I know, but must be a dominant run-blocker, and cannot give up more than 1 sack in a season. Greatness is difficult to achieve for linemen.
  
• Defensive Tackle: Must have at least 5 sacks and/or 10 tackles for loss before he can be considered great. DTs often face double-teams, but that doesn't mean they should be shutout every game. Great players still make plays.
  
• Defensive Ends: Must have 10 or more sacks, and double-digit tackles for loss to be considered great.
  
• Linebackers: Minimum 80 tackles to be considered great. Must be dominant in stopping the run game.
  
• Cornerbacks: Must get 3 or more interceptions in a season, minimum, before you can be considered for greatness. May not get beat more than once a season, unless it is by an equally great wide receiver.
  
• Safeties: Must hit like a truck. Must not get beaten deep, must be able to cover opposing deep threats well. Must make at least 30 tackles over the course of the season. If teams are constantly trying to go deep on you when they aren't behind on the scoreboard, that's a sign of a safety who isn't great.
  

So, there you have it; my criteria for greatness. I know it doesn't mean anything to sportswriters, but I think if we had more actual criteria to judge players by, we wouldn't see so much bias in sports commentary.

I was thinking about this earlier today: Is 2000-2010 the Decade of the Underdog in college football? Looking at the BCS national title game, it is starting to appear that way.

• In 2000, underdog Oklahoma beat favored Florida State.
  
• In 2001, heavily favored Miami blew out Nebraska.
  
• In 2002, underdog Ohio State beat favored Miami.
  
• In 2003, underdog LSU beat the favorite, Oklahoma, and split the national title with USC.
  
• In 2004, favored USC blew out Oklahoma.
  
• In 2005, underdog texas beat favored USC.
  
• In 2006, underdog Florida blew out favored Ohio State.
  

That means so far this decade, underdogs are 5-2 over the favorite in the BCS national title game. It begs the question of whether or not the BCS is really working; the BCS is supposed to match up the #1 and #2 teams in the nation to play for the national championship. Given that underdogs have overwhelmingly won the BCS national title game so far, you have to wonder if they are calculating who the correct favorite for these match ups is.