Yeah, except he completely mixed up in the article explaining "10, 11, 20, 21 personnel" etc. The first number is how many running backs are in the formation, second number how many tight ends (not the other way around, like he 'man-splained' in the article).
And the article failed to mention how/why UCF would run power formations with multiple/physical tight ends in the same formation when clearly that's the position on the roster with the least amount of depth, experience, or ability to execute those kind of play concepts more than a couple times throughout the game (no fault of their own, just not the way the roster has been constructed in the past).
For me, the difference in Malzahn will be more game management, and being comfortable/experienced enough to be flexible with the game-plan and in-game adjustments. Under Heupel, the team could score quickly, but they couldn't/wouldn't slowdown the pace and run out the clock when the game predicated a need to do so. That's not an easy thing for teams that play with pace to do, and it was something UCF struggled to do when they needed to close out a game (and the defense suffered for it as well).