Yes but it's freaking defferent and you know it. When the spread really worked, defenses weren't as conditioned and there were more talented skill position players on lower level teams. If you were fast enough, you could run it no matter the size. But look at the numbers. In 2002-2018, Offenses that ran a pure spread back in the day THREW THE BALL WAY MORE THAN THEY RAN. They were faster. They didn't look to the sideline and wait to snap. They snapped and ran back to the line. It worked because it gassed the defenses. Defenses have adjusted which is why the run has been put in more. This newer version of the spread with this RPO variant emphasizes way more on the run now and that's suicide for a G5 to try to run up the gut on a P5 or G5 with a good D. Some can do it but it's a very small number who can.
10 years ago, the "spread" teams were primarily 10 personnel (1 back, 4 WR) with a change up formation or two, even TF had the "T-bone" (12 personnel) formation during his time at LaTech. And yes, they could "run" the "power" oriented P5 schools to death because they were conditioned for 80 snaps a game.
When the spread came to the P5 and the P5 schools adapted their defensive personnel to the spread (defenders got smaller), they adapted on offense too.
They ran the same plays, but they ran them from 11, 12, and 21 personnel to get defenses back in simply coverages, get defenses back in base (and attack specific defenders who were liabilities in coverage), and downhill, power rushing attack against a lighter box.
Football is a cat and mouse game. Or, even better, adapt or die.
If, as you allege, the "new RPO variant" (that's incredibly vague and hard to define) emphasizes an inside rushing attack, yeah, it MAY be suicide to line up in 12 personnel against Bama (but, let's be honest, it's always suicide to line up against Bama). But it MAY also be that 12 personnel RPOs create advantageous matchups on the outside which CAN create explosive plays on the perimeter (which is what TF was able to do at LaTech with the T-Bone formation).
FWIW, I'm not saying Dearmon is going to coordinate the nation's #1 offense, nor am I saying he's the worst hire that will led the nations worst offense.
Dearmon is a good coach. He's respected. He understands RPOs. He has a good feel for a inside / power rushing attack while also understanding how to create big plays.
With any hire, there’s inherent risk. IMO, Dearmon is worth the risk. I like the hire. Seems like a good fit (both schematically and geographically). But, like any coach, it may not work out. But he has the knowledge, skills, and history to show he can make it work. So I'm willing to see what the "Dearmon" offense looks like at MT