+1
I have zero desire to see Iowa run an option oriented offense. It would be too hard to get elite talent in order to be successful in a conference that has some pretty talented defenses. Plus it's a gimicky offense and there are a lot of turnovers. Iowa will have the most success if they study the playcalling of teams like Stanford and Wisconsin. They still focus heavily on line play, but they aren't afraid to go outside the box with playcalling.
That is the point, it doesn't require elite level talent, I don't disagree that Stanford and Wisconsin are also good models. Let's not kid ourselves though, it is always going to be hard for Iowa to have a stable full of NFL type receivers and backs.
FYI
Georgia Tech 36th in the nation in scoring offense, 34th (tie) in turnovers lost, 9th in time of possesion
Standford 69th in the nation in scoring offense, 34th (tie) in turnovers lost, 22nd in time of possesion
Wisconsin 50th in the nation in scoring offense, 4th in turnovers lost, 12th in time of possesion
I am not sure why it is gimicky, the flexbone option has been run successfuly for over 30 years.
Aside from the quarterback position, Iowa has all the pieces to run it well and it would get the playmakers on the field. Athletic line, powerful fullback type ball carrier (Wiesman). Slot backs who can run and catch (Bullock, KMM, Hill) and I would think the Iowa tight end corps would flourish as the primary receivers and great outside run blockers.
I will also say, that I don't think Iowa would do something like this, but I think it makes sense. To say that Iowa doesn't have some natural disadvantages with skill positions is being naive. I think that is why Kirk runs the offense he does, problem being it doesn't produce any results and hasn't in his tenure here.