New developments in the future of football?

That could develop, but again wouldn't be new but a revival of an old tactic.  There were some split T teams where each HB had more and better passing stats than the QB, and the split T wasn't particularly known for HB passes compared to its predecessors.  (I was just looking at Grey Cup game film from 70 years ago where that was true of one team, and almost true of the other.)

I actually started a thread a few years ago saying that. There are three types of RPO’s in my mind.

RPO - Run Pass Option - QB has kept the ball and is threatening to run it or pass. Nick Marshall at Auburn in kick six game.

GPO - Give Pass Option - QB reads someone and decides to give it to a running back or throw it. QB will not run it. The current RPO.

SRO - Screen Run Option pre-snap decide if you will throw a screen, bubble most likely, or hand the ball off.

Played in a flag tournament right after college.  
Team came in and absolutely housed everyone with all dudes that looked like they camped at the Phish concert last night. 

Every single catch was lateralled several times down the field.  Fumbles were ruled dead and given back to offense so the fear of losing the ball was gone but I've always admired their intuition for exploiting that rule.

Imagine defending a team that was extremely good at laterals down field that were actually built into their offense.  

A-11 was about throwing it to any of the 11 guys. Everyone had an eligible number on. Only 5 (6 counting qb) would be eligible, but the defense had to figure out which 5 every play.

Art Briles played and coached for Yeoman at UH...

A-11 talk led me to googling "Kurt Bryan" which led me to an article that mentioned the A-11 was banned in 2009. Remembering the talks on here and seeing it was banned that long ago made me feel very old...

I remember going to a clinic after my first year (1977) and one of the Washington schools (don't remember which one) was running triple option and using RPO's off of that.

The game is so rigidly structured by rules that a lot of “innovation” in terms of Xs and Os is difficult.

Compounding this is that football attracts a very conservative, orthodox culture around it that will jump all over any coach who tries to do stuff “the wrong way,” even if it works. You already see this with coaches who run “outdated” offenses... just think of how hard people are on coaches doing “weird” stuff no one has ever seen. I include not only fans, but other coaches, players, administrators, and media types in this.

Some things I could see becoming more fashionable over the next few years:

“Heavy spread” offenses—meaning teams who line up in gun or pistol formations and use what has become standard “spread stuff” like Zone Read, Power Read, and post-snap RPOs but with multiple TEs and FBs brought into the formation to adjust who gets read and who gets blocked in subtle, but important, ways.

“Super spread” OLs with extra wide splits—maybe 10’+—across the board and a much greater emphasis on screens and possibly on backwards passes, adding an almost rugby flavor to the game.

“Neo-8 man front” defenses—by this I mean defenses with 3 devoted deep secondary players, 6 designated “box players” and then a pair of “overhang” OLB/CBs whose job is mostly to reroute, play flats, and sink with receivers running downfield. The ISU “3 safety” dime defense, to my eyes, really seems to be a kind of convergent evolution back towards this but with more modern coverage ideas.

Special teams are an area I think are ripe for evolution. Reverses, laterals, different approaches to when and how to kick or punt.... these are all things that have been around a while, yet you rarely see anybody take risks on special teams because the risk is so high... but so the potential rewards could be, as well. As offenses and defenses have evolved, special team strategy is still pretty much the same as it’s been for decades.

The elephant in the room is how CTE fears and cultural changes exacerbated by the pandemic will affect the sport, especially at the HS and youth levels. I can easily see schools ceding a lot more ground in teenage athletics to private trainers, “handlers,” and independent AAU-style traveling or co-op teams who market themselves much like a pro team would and emphasize recruiting and preparing athletes for BCS competition, but possibly even play a HS schedule. IMG Academy is a harbinger of things to come.

I also feel like we’re going to see a lot more kids “opting out” of their seasons when they get frustrated or see it as pointless and coaches just having to deal with it while colleges continue to recruit the stud athletes.

I can also see a lot more schools, especially small schools or scabs strapped schools, just folding up their football programs altogether. Football can be a huge moneymaker in a lot of places, but it can also be a money pit for many others. If schools don’t fold up outright, I can even foresee a movement to do more 6-9 man football leagues (which many people balk at as “not real football”) or just do touch football/intermurals with “gender equality” to save on costs.

Deep.  Probably very accurate. 

I feel like I watched an 8 man championship game, and almost every play was this. Motion someone around to flip the ball to him and he would pass or run. Really seemed like both teams took this approach. 

Google the playbook (italicized in my post).

When you find that look for the plays that begin with a '4' - 413, etc.