I don't think the read-option mandates a strict inside-->outside philosophy. In fact, the read-option is about flexibility; taking what the defense gives you and maximizing yardage on every rushing play.

Our QB had essentially two reads to make on each read-option play. He would key on the MLB lined up near the interior hole we wanted to hit. If the MLB stepped up to stop the run, the QB pulled the ball and optioned to the outside. If the MLB froze or dropped back, we pounded it up the middle.

When we optioned to the outside, the QB made a simple read on the defensive end. If the DE stepped forward (into the backfield), the QB was supposed to pitch to the option back. If the DE stepped laterally (trying to string the play out toward the sideline), the QB was responsible to cut hard upfield through the space that the DE just vacated.

We spent hours and hours on those two reads, practicing them toward both sides of the field. Eventually, the reads were second nature, even for the running backs. We would know when the FB should get the ball, when the QB was supposed to pitch, and when he was going to keep it himself. (And you had better believe that we ALL knew when the QBs were selfishly calling their own numbers instead of pitching the ball!)

Based on my experience, I have a hard time believing that runs into the teeth of the defense (whether they are rushes to the inside or the outside) are EVER necessary. If the defense is keying on a run up the middle, why not pull the ball and option to the outside? Why not adapt to the opponent? If they are keying on the outside run, run inside; if they are taking away the inside run, run outside.

BYU regularly demonstrates a lack of flexibility and an adherence to a rigid inside-->outside game plan. I believe this philosophy is at the heart of BYU's coaching problems - their coaches assume that a predetermined game plan (if perfectly executed) will yield victory, and so they are slow to make in-game adjustments.