No I disagree, I don't think they are identical, and I don't think they use the same core concepts. How would argue that? You could only argue that if you are talking about core concepts that ALL of offensive football uses. But if you do that, than you are saying everything in offensive football is the same, and there can be no distinctions. That doesn't seem like a useful analysis.
Let's look at the Nebraska offense under Tom Osborne. Osborne's Nebraska was a power run offense first, with some options, not an option first offense. Nebraska really didn't start running the option until the 80s. In the 70s they were a pretty standard pro-form. Nebraska's options changed some over time, but when they ran them, they were double options, never triple options, and he didn't use a spread OL either. Triple options require different set ups, meshes, blocking, and now days formations than double options. Also, Nebraska didn't spread teams out, they tried to get more blockers as the point of attack instead. You can always say that teams are trying to get the ball carrier into space in every system (to a degree), but how they do it certainly differs, and it the two styles can't be run from the same concepts. There is a fundamental difference in using multiple blockers at the point of attack to open up a running whole, and spreading out the defense to open a hole. That is not the same thing. They are difference philosophies. Outmanning at the point of attack actually requires extra blockers at the point of attack, which is the antithesis of spreading teams out. You can argue that you might try and do both (Oregon and Auburn),= by spreading a defense out then using 1 blocker to get an advantage at the point of attack, but the vernacular usually defines "getting more men at the point of attack" to be using a power formation with lots of offensive players "in the box" or "between the tackles". That philosophy usually pulls and traps and brings 2-3 blockers at the point of attack. A spread run philosophy wants maybe one blocker at the point of attack. You can argue that the result either way is just maybe 1 extra blocker at the point of attack, but there is a significant difference between using 2-3 blockers and 1 blocker at the point of attack. Think Wisconsin a few years ago with Christ as OC and Bielma as HC. They had plenty of set up plays, but their bread and butter run for yards was their counter trap, where they had 3 or more blockers running a train off tackle after a counter step. It has two pulling lineman and a FB all going into the gap. That is a mass of football players running in a small area to clear a whole. Contrast that with Oregon running Inside Zone with 3-4 WR from a single back shotgun. I don't see how you can call them the same. Again, if you are calling them the same because they both try and get a whole at the point of attack, get 1 extra blocker maybe, etc, etc...then what is the difference between ANY style of run play. They all try and do that. If you take it to that level, every run play is the same. That doesn't seem like a useful analysis.
The truth is that EVERY offense I can think of only uses a small handful of plays, and they just run them from different alignments and formation, using motions and different shifts to disguise the same plays over and over. However, most teams do not use a lot of different philosophies in those small handful of plays. They usually stick to one style of running, and the differences do matter.
The real magic of Osborne's offenses was Osborne himself, and that is hard to duplicate. He was great at in game adjustments and timing. He had a great feel for what plays to run, and when to run particular play. He had a lot of patience and picked his moments.
Besides, I watch more for defense anyway these days, unless one of the teams actually runs between the tackles. I have just about given up on offense in CFB today.
I had a suicide gif all loaded, but then I decided to check a few message boards. I figured you might be messing with me, you dick.