October 25, 2000

1. Two weeks ago I had this feeling (call it intuition, call it a gift of prophecy, call it too many Guinness Stouts on an empty stomach) that Tech had a real shot at upsetting Clemmons. The Jackets were getting better each week on offense and the defense was improving over last season. They would be coming off two easy wins against Wake Forest and Duke, and would be catching the Tigers the week before Baby Bowden played Daddy Bowden, which meant there was a reasonable chance that Klempsun would be looking ahead to FSU and overlooking Tech. Something just felt right about it . . . another road win in Death Valley like the one in '89 really did seem within reach.
   
   

   Alas, that was before Tech played Wake Forest and Duke. Those were certainly two lopsided wins for the program, but they exposed the continuing weaknesses in the Jackets' pass coverage. Now, I know the pass defense stats improved a bit against Duke, but that was more a function of the fact that Duke's receivers dropped at least five or six passes when they were wide open. Had they caught those balls - and they were all eminently catchable - Duke would have put up one or two more touchdowns and another 125 yards in pass offense, and the final stats would have looked as bad as the Wake Forest game.

   Which is a long way of saying that I'm not feeling good at all about the upcoming game. Tech is doing as well as anyone could have hoped with its pass rush and run defense, and special teams play has been superb, but the pass coverage still isn't there. Regardless of whether Clempson puts Woody Dantzler or Willie Simmons at quarterback, I don't see Tech stopping their passing game. Clemmsan will likely convert every third-and-long situation they face and send us home with a bitter defeat. I hope I'm wrong. In fact, I would love to be wrong on this one. But I don't feel confident about it at all.

   The defensive backfield has been playing too soft in coverage throughout the season (in fact, this has been a problem dating back to 1995) and giving up too many long receptions. I honestly don't think the problem is with the players. Jonathan Cox, Tony Hollings and Marvious Hester have the kind of talent that would enable them to play - and play well - at most Division I-A schools. Jamara Clark had a productive season in 1998 under the tutelage of Randy Edsall, but hasn't played up to that level since. A lot of Hivesters think the problem is with the coaching the defensive backs are getting. I find myself agreeing with them more every day.

   That being the case, Dr. Football is going to do a quickie survey here. I'd like to invite all interested readers to send me an e-mail with their nomination for who the next defensive backs coach should be, and why. Just click on the hot link up at the top and send me your choice: Don Lindsey, Danny Smith, Chuck Priefer, Terry Tuley, whoever. The best responses will be featured in the next edition of this column.

   (By the way, many of you will remember that Willie Simmons was heavily recruited by Tech out of high school, but made a last-minute decision to sign with Clemsonne. After watching him play against North Carolina, that's one sale I wish the Tech coaches could have closed.)

1. It's always good to get questions from readers who are so well-informed and insightful, and I hope all those Hivesters who enjoy Dr. Football will send me similarly worded messages. Seriously, I promise not to get a big head, if you know what I mean (and I think you do).

   I somewhat agree with your statement about the Wake Forest game in that the offense was absolutely brilliant - clicking on all cylinders as if Little Joe were back in command checking off at the line of scrimmage. The offensive line blocked beautifully and dominated the Deacs all afternoon. The running backs were a delightful mixture of zip (Sidney Ford) and power (Joe Burns, particularly on that touchdown run where he bulldozed the defender into the end zone). The wide receivers, especially Kelly Campbell, were torching Wake's secondary - for a second there, I could have sworn it was Jamie Henderson once again getting lost in Kelly's exhaust. As for George Godsey - well, the kid doesn't throw the tightest, prettiest spiral in the world, but he just keeps getting better every game. It was proof of something we've noted in this space before: Ralph Friedgen's system is so well-designed and foolproof that it almost doesn't matter who you plug-and-play; they're going to put points on the board.

   Tech displayed the same ruthless offensive efficiency against Duke, crisply marching the ball almost every time they got it in the first half. They had the ball for less than 21 minutes, compared to 39 minutes for Duke, but still outscored them by 35 points. Which goes to show you what a meaningless statistic time-of-possession can be. It was great to see Sean Gregory bust that long scoring run against the Devils - he seems to be recapturing the form he had in 1999. With Joe Burns, Sean Gregory and Sidney Ford, Tech has the equivalent of a three-headed tailback (which is even better than a double-headed dildo).

   Now, if they could just do something about that pass coverage.

1. Let's look at the numbers:

   Georgia is averaging 28.3 points per game, which is disgraceful when you consider that they have an alleged Heisman Trophy candidate at quarterback, the next Herschel Walker at running back, and all those Parade All-Americans like Musa Smith, Reggie Brown, Durrell Robinson, etc. With all that supposed talent, they should be averaging at least 40 points a game against the soft schedule they've played so far.

   Georgia Tech, on the other hand, is averaging nearly 35 points a game with a slow-footed quarterback who can't run the option, rode the bench for three years, will never be mentioned by anyone as a Heisman Trophy candidate, and isn't even the first choice of a lot of his team's fans to be the starter. Could it be that Ralph Friedgen is such a brilliant offensive coordinator that his schemes will put points on the board even when you're breaking in a new quarterback? Could it be that Jim Donnan is just a pee-poor coach who can't even break 30 points a game with a Heisman Trophy candidate at quarterback and a weak schedule? You be the judge.

   Some other interesting statistics: Georgia fans have been yipping for the last two years that Kelly Campbell couldn't make our scout team. Funny thing about that - Campbell has more receptions, yardage and touchdowns this season than Georgia's Parade All-American, Terrence Edwards. For that matter, Tech's part-time starter at tight end, Russ Matvay, has as many receptions (10) as Reggie Brown and Durrell Robinson combined. Kerry Watkins, one of Tech's backup wide receivers, has more receptions, yards and touchdowns than Brown and Robinson combined (and is a dangerous special teams player as well).

   Joe Burns has gained more yards rushing (498) than Jasper Sanks (the next Herschel Walker ) and Brett Millican combined (486) - in other words, Tech's number one tailback has gained more yards than Georgia's top TWO running backs. Sidney Ford, Tech's third-string tailback, has gained more yards rushing than either Bruce Thornton or Musa Smith, two Prepstar All-Americans.

   Godsey may not be a Heisman Trophy candidate, but look at the numbers he's putting up compared to LaVonya Quintelle Carter. Since Carter missed the Kentucky game, we'll do a comparison based on the first six games of the season. After six games, Godsey had thrown more passes (176 to 143), completed more passes (108 to 71), had a better completion percentage (61.4 percent to 49.7 percent), gained more yards passing (1,341 to 1,010), thrown for more touchdowns (14 to 5) and had fewer passes intercepted (3 to 7). In fact, Carter had more passes intercepted in ONE GAME (against South Carolina) than Godsey has had intercepted all season. And Carter has completed fewer than half of his passes, which puts him considerably south of mediocre. In terms of passing efficiency, Godsey was ranked 10th by the NCAA after six games with a passing efficiency rating of 148.2. Carter wasn't even in the top 50, which means he ranked behind such giants of the game as Rocky Perez (UTEP), Bart Hendricks (Boise State), Darnell Arceneaux (Utah), Sage Rosenfels (Iowa State), Butchie Washington (Akron), Greg Zolman (Vanderbilt), and Devin Scott (Temple). Georgia fans used to claim Carter was a better quarterback than Joe Hamilton, but it turns out Carter can't even match the production of Joe Hamilton's backup. For that matter, he can't match the production of his own backup. Cory Phillips threw for 400 yards against Kentucky and had four TD passes, which is better by far than anything Carter's done this year.

   For those mutt fans who want to argue that Georgia's numbers don't look as good as Tech's because they've played such a tough SEC schedule, tell me, again, who Georgia has beat. Their six victories have been against a Division I-AA school, the two worst programs in the SEC, a bottom-feeding Big West team, an Arkansas team minus its top two running backs that was suffering a letdown after an emotional win over Alabama, and the weakest Tennessee team in a decade. Their one loss, of course, was to a team that was coming off an 18-game SEC losing streak.

1. Let's see now, that would be the defense that gave up 442 yards to Vanderbilt, which for years (hell, centuries) has had the weakest offense in the SEC. That's also the defense that followed up that performance by surrendering 620 yards and 30 points to a Kentucky team that, last time I checked, had a 2-5 record. Of course, mutt fans point to what a great job their defense did in shutting down Tennessee, but what does that prove? Tennessee is 3-3 this year, has played two freshmen at quarterback, has an offensive line largely made up of freshmen, and lost its starting center to injury the week before they played Georgia. Holding the Vols to 10 points proves nothing. Call me back when Georgia's defense shuts down a team whose offense can actually move the ball.

1. I think Godsey has more than proved he's the best choice to be the starting quarterback. Let's give it a rest.

1. Obviously, a quarterback in his first year in the program wouldn't be able to master all the nuances of Friedgen's offensive schemes, but he could get by with a simplified, stripped-down version of it. If Mark Logan had to play because of injuries or some such, I think he could make a contribution - but I'd rather not have to find out.

1. That already happened on Nov. 28, 1998.
   
   

1. Unfortunately, no. Fox appeared in too many games this season to qualify for a medical redshirt. We may see him play if Tech makes it into a bowl game (which is a good possibility). We may even see him back before the end of the season.
   
   

1. You've obviously spent way too much time listening to Jim Rome. Let's play the expansion card and do a little speculating.
   
   

   When it comes to conference expansion and realignment, here's what I think college football should do - at least, here's what college football would do if it existed in a rational, logical world, instead of a world run by Roy Kramer and all the bowl committee chairmen he's been circle-jerking for the last 20 years.

   One thing college football urgently needs to do, at the Division I-A level, is put the small, private colleges that don't have the resources to compete with the large public universities into their own conference. Let's take Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rice, Houston, Northwestern, Temple, Rutgers, Army and Navy and put them into one conference. They would all be on a fairly equal footing and they would all have a good shot at a decent season.

   But wait, you say, how can you even suggest taking Duke and Wake Forest out of the ACC? It's simple - Duke and Wake could continue to play a full ACC schedule in basketball and compete for the ACC basketball title every year; they just wouldn't be a part of the ACC for football purposes. This is already done in conferences like the Big East, where Notre Dame, Connecticut, St. John's, Georgetown and Villanova compete in basketball but not in football. Why couldn't the ACC do it as well? Duke and Wake Forest have plenty of resources to be competitive - and even dominant - in basketball, but it's obvious they can't pull their weight in football (where it takes a helluva lot more money to recruit a team and run a program). Let's put them in a football conference that's more their speed, where they would be competing against other small, private colleges.

   Next, let's whittle on the SEC. South Carolina and Arkansas aren't really traditional SEC schools and don't really fit there. Away with them! FSU, Miami and Southern Mississippi, with their geographical location and their emphasis on football over basketball, are much better suited for SEC membership. Add them to the conference - they could replace South Carolina, Arkansas and Vanderbilt, and maintain the two-division, 12-team makeup of the SEC.

   Arkansas should be sent back to the Big 12, where it could rejoin all its traditional rivals from the old Southwest Conference, and South Carolina should be sent back to the ACC, where it would once again match up with its in-state rival, Clemson.

   If you take Duke, Wake Forest and FSU out of the ACC and add South Carolina, you've got seven teams in the conference. I would also add East Carolina, Virginia Tech and West Virginia to the ACC - they're a good geographical fit and they would give you a 10-team conference that could be split into two divisions.

   On to the Big 10. I've already proposed that Northwestern leave the Big 10 to join other private colleges in their own conference. I would also move Penn State from the Big 10 to the Big East - it makes more sense geographically, and Penn State should be in the same conference with its cross-state rival, Pittsburgh. I would then take Notre Dame and move them into the Big 10, which would actually result in a Big 10 conference with 10 schools (add Notre Dame, subtract Northwestern and Penn State).

   After you've carried out this realignment of the major conferences, the NCAA should then take conferences like the Big West, Mid-American, and the WAC and move them into Division I-AA. This, I think, would give us a Division I-A with conferences that are balanced and competitive and able to give fans the kind of matchups they want.

   Now, do I think any of this will actually happen? Of course not. After all, we're talking about the NCAA.