Oct. 24, 2003

Four short years ago, Clemson's no-huddle offense was all the rage in the trendy business of offensive schemes. The Tigers were playing fast-break, basketball-on-grass, using four wideouts and no huddles. They would drive opposing defenses nuts trying to keep up with their substitution patterns while not having time to adjust personnel groups themselves.

Two things have happened over the years, though, that have forced Tigers coach Tommy Bowden to tweak his offensive attack.

One was that opposing defenses adjusted over two and three and four years to learning how to play the Tigers. It no longer became the gimmick it once was.

And the second was that a spread, fast-break offense was all well and good in the wide-open field, but get close to the goal line--where the boundaries shrink--and a downfield passing game isn't nearly as effective. Down there you've got to have some power elements to your attack.

So this year the Tigers have focused on developing a better running game. And while they still use a four-wide set frequently, the cadence of their offense has slowed down.

You'll notice Saturday that the Tigers will line up on the football after an offensive snap without a huddle, but usually will take most all of their 25 seconds on the play clock before the ball is snapped. Clemson offensive coordinator Brad Scott and quarterbacks coach Mike O'Cain will watch from the press box to see what personnel group and formation the defense appears ready to use, then communicate the play call to the sideline. From there it's relayed by hand signals into QB Charlie Whitehurst, who shouts it to his teammates. Sometimes Whitehurst will adjust the play according to the look the defense gives him.

All of which gives the Tar Heels plenty to worry about Saturday.

"They're running the ball better this year," Carolina coach John Bunting says. "And they have four receivers to cover. That's a concern given our lack of depth in the secondary. They're tall, rangy receivers who can run and really jump. They're hard to cover. They are playmakers. And I really like their quarterback. We tried to recruit him when I first got here. He was our No. 1 guy. He has a live arm and is very, very dangerous."

My feeling on third-and-one with a little over a minute to go was NOT to give the ball back to ASU willingly, to go for it on fourth down. We would have won the ball game with a first down. In giving the ball to them, we have our weakest unit on the field trying to win the game vs. not having our strongest unit trying to win the game. That situation to me was akin to trying not to lose versus making the effort to win.
Bill Taylor, Washington, N.C.

That is obviously a good question and a decision that is wide-open to second-guessing. John Bunting himself has questioned his decision. I am sure offensive coordinator Gary Tranquill has second-guessed his play call. I'm sure a hard-working young man who nonetheless made a mistake and blocked the wrong Sun Devil on the third-and-one is kicking himself. And I have no doubt that the official who incorrectly spotted the second-down play, taking away a first-down that was clearly visible on tape, wishes he hadn't erred as well.

A reporter wondered the same thing Tuesday at Bunting's weekly press conference.

"Going for it crossed my mind," he said. "But it's a lot of field position to give up if you don't make it. We had stopped them twice in a row on defense--one punt and one on downs. Before that, they had missed a field goal. So, three times we had stopped them from scoring a touchdown, so I thought the long field was the way to go."

Bunting also noted that his old coach and boss with the Philadelphia Eagles and Kansas City Chiefs, Dick Vermeil, faced the very same decision in Monday night's NFL game between the Chiefs and Oakland Raiders. Vermeil elected to punt on fourth-and-short near midfield and try to pin the Raiders with a long field and little time remaining.

After the final touchdown, why did ASU not attempt a point-after? Since the defense is eligible to score two points on a conversion try, the Heels could conceivably have tied the game on that play. Don't they have to give us the chance? Sure, they could just take a knee, but they should be required to execute that.
Bert Hackney, Vienna, Va.

Mick Mixon of the Tar Heel Sports Network, a rules expert in his spare time, was quick to respond when I passed your question along by citing Rule 8, Section 3, Article 2-a: "If a touchdown is scored during a down in which time in the fourth period expires, the try is mandatory unless the team behind in the score leaves the field of play."

The Tar Heels could indeed have forced Arizona State to attempt the point-after. But the Sun Devils would absolutely have taken a knee, as you suggest. To have settled a jubilant ASU team down enough to get organized and to gotten a despondent group of Tar Heels to line up would have been a waste of time. As Mick said, "It would have been a one-in-a-billion chance."

Why do we use John Lafferty to punt when David Wooldridge can give us better field position every time?
Jean Weatherman, Greensboro

There is no question that Wooldridge, a red-shirt freshman, has a stronger leg than the senior Lafferty. Wooldridge has nailed six kicks this season for 49 yards, while Lafferty is averaging 37.5 yards. In fairness to Lafferty, however, his 26 punts include several when he was trying to pin the ball inside the 20 and had no chance for a good yardage figure.

You aren't the only person asking this question. Wooldridge is getting more and more opportunity to kick and will be given the starting nod Saturday at Clemson. One component of the kicking operation that has held Wooldridge back is that it has taken him longer to get his kicks away, thus improving the chances of an opponent blocking the punt. Wooldridge is averaging 2.1 seconds compared to 1.9 to 2.0 for Lafferty. Wooldridge has improved his timing as the season has progressed to the point the staff feels his superior leg strength cannot be overlooked. It will be interesting on Saturday to see how Wooldridge responds in Clemson's hostile environment.

Two questions. One, why did John Lafferty kick the first two PATs in the Arizona State game? Since Dan Orner kicked a 50-yard FG and two PATs later in the game, the reason couldn't be because Orner was injured. And two, is there any chance Jarwarski Pollock might end up with a fourth year of football eligibility a la Rabbit Waddell? If I remember correctly, Waddell and Pollock were both sophomores in their first year of football eligibility.
Wayne Killian, Wilmington

Lafferty was mistakenly listed in the official boxscore has having kicked the first two extra points, but it was in fact Orner. And yes--Pollock was a partial qualifier on entering school in 2001 and, like Waddell, would be eligible for a fourth season of athletic eligibility if he earned his degree by the spring of 2005.

I am a second year graduate student at UNC. I grew up an avid fan of the Heels, having grown up in Gastonia, and I love being here in school. I've become a little disappointed this year, however, and not so much with the football team as you might expect (because even though they're losing, they're playing their hearts out). My disappointment lies with the marching band. Can you explain why the band has been moved from the west end zone to down in front of the students, behind Carolina's bench? If you are a student sitting anywhere behind them, or up and to the left of them, it's almost impossible to hear what they're playing, unless you can pick out the drum beat! I don't see how that is better than having them in the end zone, where they play out into the stadium. Is there a logical reason for the move?
Boyce Hunt, Jr., Chapel Hill

The band was relocated this season for a variety of reasons, each of them carefully considered by the Carolina marketing and game operations staffs as well as band director Jeff Fuchs.

The band's placement now is actually the very same location the band used for many years prior to the opening of the new west end zone facility for the 1997 season. So it's not as if this year's change is undermining a long-standing tradition.

Fuchs explains the rationale for the changes this year:

"The general feeling was that the band would be better able to participate with, and coordinate the efforts of, the student section if they were seated in the middle of it," Fuchs says. "Also, the new placement would make possible better communication between the band and cheerleaders, who are most often located on the sideline in front of the new band section. Finally, the new location allowed the band to remain part of the crowd late in the game, when the other end zone seats have traditionally emptied."

Fuchs notes that this year's experiment will be considered along with a variety of other game-day issues between this season and next.