Florida put up amazing numbers last year with their version of the spread and with good reason - they had the perfect spread quarterback. Tim Tebow had 23 rushing touchdowns and 32 passing touchdowns. He's the first football player in NCAA history to do this. He rushed for 1364 yards as a quarterback. Furthermore, Florida had an excellent offensive line and receivers. Florida's Percy Harvin caught 93 passes and had 15 touchdowns. Florida had everything a spread offense requires to win football games.

Yet, they lost FOUR games in 2007.

Texas Tech had a quarterback who threw for 5,705 yards and 48 touchdowns. As someone who follows Auburn football – I can't even comprehend someone passing for that many yards.

Texas Tech lost FOUR games in 2007.

Their numbers looked great, but the bottom line is that they didn't produce. They didn't win football games. Where's the disconnect? Is it possible for Auburn to lose less than four games if they implement the spread?

Duel Threat QB: He can sing AND dance

My opinion of the spread is biased since I watch more Auburn football than all other football games combined, and for some reason, Auburn has beaten almost every spread offense they've faced. Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico State, South Carolina and Washington State all run the spread. Auburn's beaten each of these teams handily in recent years. The only spread offense Auburn lost to is South Florida. Obviously, only watching Auburn games doesn't give me a proper perspective. For example, the only two Georgia Tech games I've ever watched were the 2003 and 2005 Auburn games. Because of this, I'm under the impression that Reggie Ball was the best quarterback to play college football. He dominated both those games, yet he's considered one of the worst quarterbacks in ACC history. The Georgia Tech losses can be considered statistical anomalies since Auburn only played them twice in recent years. What about the spread? Is there a single reason Auburn's beaten those teams other than the fact that Auburn is a really, really good football team?

Spread teams seem to lose the 'big game' on a more frequent basis. The successful spread teams who lost fewer than four games lost either to their rival or late in the season when a possible national championship was on the line. West Virginia, Kansas, Missouri and South Florida were examples of this last season.

Auburn usually has no problem winning the 'big game' – even if they're the underdog. Yet, Auburn usually doesn't win the 'big game' via big plays from the offense. The biggest offensive plays in these big games tend to be the quarterback sneaks for a first down or a simple eight yard route to the tight end. This becomes painfully obvious when trying to make a highlight video. Auburn's defense and diabolical special teams more than make up for any boredom brought on by the offense. But, I can see how a 'boring' offense can be better. On a mental level, trying to catch a 40 yard pass to take the lead in a crucial game would seem to be much harder against a top 10 team – even if the play calling and execution results in an ideal match-up. These 40 yard pass playcalls are far more common in a spread offense. The effectiveness of the simpler plays are based on talent and preparation more so than the downfield shots spread offenses tend to use.

It seems like Tony Franklin doesn't rely on the big play as much as other spread offenses I've seen. I base this off what I saw during the Clemson game and a few Troy games. Other spread offenses tend to throw downfield for three downs and sees what sticks. This is why the spread offense is popular at the high school level. There's a high standard deviation between the athletic talent of high school receivers and high school corners. Once a coach finds the right mismatch, the game's over. This talent gap appears less in college football and even less in the NFL. This is why the spread is used the most in high school and the least in the NFL.

This is the beautiful thing about sports – you can't fake competence. Give a book the right cover, fonts, pictures and press, and it can be a best seller despite the content. With football, an offense won't be successful just because it's admired. It will only succeed if it works. The level of success is based on how much it works.

The spread offense is a bad thing for the BCS since teams who run the spread are capable of beating more talented teams, thus creating more parity. I hate that this adds more doubt as to who plays in the BCS national championship game, but the drama this special offense has brought to college football in general, in making teams like West Virginia, South Florida, Missouri and Kansas football overnight kings, is a fun thing to watch.

Auburn is the first team to switch to the spread while already ranked as a top 15 team. Tommy Tuberville, the CEO-type coach, is doing what any great CEO does;

1. Steal the good idea from the little guy.
2. Destroy the little guy.
3. Destroy all other opposition.
4. Maniacally laugh while relaxing by the pool filled with gold coins.

It's pretty funny if you compare this to the image of Nick Saban “working 365 days to defeat” Auburn by brooding over film, working nights and weekends.

Simply put, if Auburn's quarterback puts up Tim Tebow numbers and the defense remains awesome – Auburn becomes unstoppable. The worst case scenario is that Tony Franklin's “Tony Franklin System” playbooks become self aware, turn on their masters and enslave the human race. Even in this worst case scenario, I see Auburn going no worse than 11-2. Not bad.

In conclusion, if you haven't already noticed, I don't know what I'm talking about.

War Eagle!

E-mail Mark at mark@theauburner.com
Our sponsor Ticket City has Auburn tickets check them out before buying elsewhere.