SHOP NOW

By Adam Lucas

First, thanks to everyone who came out to the Best Game Ever signing on Friday at Chapel Hill Sportswear. We had a great time meeting everyone. Our only regret was that the huge crowd didn't enable us to spend as much time as we would've liked getting to thank folks for coming out. It was a great weekend and that was a fun way to start.

We always like to hear inventive solutions that allow Tar Heel fans to combine the television video with the Tar Heel Sports Network audio. Mike Heyse writes in this week with the following suggestion:

Ingredients:
1. TV with TiVo or DVR capability
2. Computer with internet connection, preferably connected to stereo speakers for amplification (hook ups available at Radio Shack)
3. Access to UNC basketball online broadcast

Steps:
1. Listen to Woody online. (This way, the delay is that the picture is ahead of Woody's call, not the usual reverse delay)
2. TiVo or DVR the game.
3. Synch up the TV and Woody by having the picture on pause for about 5 seconds before tip off; hit "play" on the TiVo or DVR when you hear Woody call the tip off and it should be about perfect.

Good ideas, Mike. And by the way, anyone who doesn't have DVR/TiVo needs to go ahead and take the plunge. It's a life-changing device. The first time you sit down to watch a shot that's allegedly an hour long and it only takes 40 minutes, you'll be hooked.

I have a question which is on the tip of every student at UNC's tongue: Why does every other school's student section dwarf ours?? I know that the Dean Dome now is much better than when it first opened, and I am also very thankful for the Risers seats students get.

However, I have recently been to several away games, including games at Wake Forest and NC State, in which I was baffled by the sheer size of the student sections. Wake Forest's "Tie Dye Nation" seems to envelop a quarter of the LJVM Coliseum. The students made it tough for our Tar Heels in the first half, who only had a 5 point lead. I thought that was impressive; then I went to the RBC Center. With a student section surrounding the court, the intensity of the crowd could be heard even on television. No doubt, based on some of the quotes from players like Hansbrough and Lawson, the noise from the student section gave the Wolfpack a considerable advantage and helped them to get a win against our 3rd ranked team.

The Dean Dome has certainly evolved from the Sam Cassell-ordained "Wine and Cheese" crowd. Yet, it is hard to forget about those words when you go to a home game and see the fans with the best seats watching the game leisurely, as if it's a polo match of some form. When students see these front rows, they see places that are in the middle of the action, places where they can make a difference in the game. From a player's standpoint, I don't think I have to explain that having a good student section is an obvious advantage (see Cameron Indoor Stadium or the RBC Center against UNC). However, I do know that building the Dean Dome along with maintaining our highly-touted program all require large sums of financial aid. However, it seems strange to me that other programs acknowledge that their team is made for the students, while ours seems to be made for the viewing pleasure of wealthy alumni.
Michael Cowherd

Some issues bring Tar Heel fans together--Dean Smith, the rivalry with Duke, Carolina blue as the best color in the world. There are only a very few issues that split the fan base apart, and this is one of them. Before tackling the above question, let's lay down some ground rules. No use of the words "fat cats." Students must understand the financial realities of running an elite college basketball program. Alums must understand the emotional tie to the issue possessed by students.

There are actually several questions here. Let's try to take them one-by-one.

The volume issue: you're comparing the "RBC Center against UNC" to an average Carolina game. A more fair comparison would be the RBC Center against an average opponent to the same at Carolina. The Wolfpack announced just over 13,000 fans for their Big 10 Challenge game against Michigan (two-thirds of capacity), 17,000 for the ACC opener against Boston College on a Saturday afternoon (86% of capacity), and just over 15,000 for the ACC game--top-tier Virginia--prior to the Carolina game (76% of capacity).

This isn't picking on State. It's just a way to try and point out that as Tar Heel fans, we often get a skewed perspective of opposing crowds, because the only time we see them is when Carolina comes to town. And along with Duke, that's one of the two biggest home games on any opponent's home schedule. Of course it's going to be loud and intimidating. Imagine the Smith Center if every home game was Ohio State or Duke. At Carolina, it's fashionable to talk about how bad the crowds are. And when people (that includes students and alums) are still filing in at the second media timeout of a 7 p.m. weeknight game or streaming for the exits with four minutes left in a league game, it's frustrating. But a parade of coaches who have seen their share of big-time environments--Jim Calhoun, Thad Matta, Mike Krzyzewski, Lute Olson--have complimented the Smith Center crowd over the past couple years. The issue isn't the excitement level in big games. It's the excitement level in average games, and that's the same problem that exists everywhere in America.

This is going to hurt a little, but I also think Carolina fans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex because of the attention given to the Duke students eight miles down the road. We're constantly told they're the world's best fans, the sporting standard, and the wildest and wackiest bunch of kids around. They're loud and they're (occasionally, but not as often as they used to be) creative. But they're basically fans of the Cameron Crazies brand. For them, it's like joining the chess club--it's a place they can belong. For them, the focus is in the stands. When the TV cameras go off, they're absent, as you can see from their football attendance.

Carolina fans have always been different, because they're basketball fans. They grew up in the ACC region and were raised on the game. They know the history, they understand the nuances, and they remember watching the ACC Tournament in school on a Friday in March. The focus is on the court. There was an interesting quote last week in the wake of Carolina-Duke from a Blue Devil student who said, "When you get inside Cameron, it changes your life." That's very different from what a Carolina student would have said. For them, the life-changing moment comes when they're accepted to UNC. At that instant, they know what they're a part of and what it means. They don't have to sleep in a tent to develop an appreciation for the game. If you're a Carolina student, try and remember that you're going to the game to support the team, not to get on TV. That's always been the case in Chapel Hill, and as long as it's still the case, Carolina students don't need to apologize for anything.

Whew, I feel better.

Now, on the premise of other student sections "dwarfing" the student allotment at Carolina: it's simply not true. Let's take a look around the ACC:

Where does Carolina stand? The Smith Center officially seats 21,750. Of that total, 6,000 seats (27.6% of the total) are committed to students. As you can see from the above, that places the Tar Heels in the top third of the league in terms of student seats. Simply in terms of the total, it's 1,600 more than the next closest school. And you could combine State and Wake, the two schools mentioned above, and still be 100 less than Carolina's total.

Three schools give a higher percentage of seats to their students--Florida State and Virginia Tech rarely have sellouts, and Duke can afford to be generous with students because their local alumni base is dwarfed by schools like Carolina and State. And here's a fact that really hurts students when they clamor for more or better seats: during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 seasons (a national championship year and one of the most compelling Carolina teams in the Smith Center era), students picked up their full allotment for only two distributions in two years. Ouch. This year's numbers aren't as easily available, because the online nature of tickets doesn't lend itself to figuring out which tickets were picked up. But based on the stack of never-used student tickets outside student gates and the slow-to-fill student sections, it's a safe bet that the numbers are similar.

Without even opening the inbox, I know exactly what the next argument will be from students--sure, they get a lot of tickets, but the location isn't very good. This has always seemed to me to be a curious argument. So the theory is that you'll go to the games, but only if you can sit in the lower deck?

There's a bizarre prejudice against the upper deck at Carolina. Some students will roll their eyes at this, but an upper deck seat is much more than many people get the opportunity to experience. Bill Guthridge, for example, sits in the upper deck. If you joined the Rams Club (which everyone should do) and endowed a half scholarship for $100,000, you'd receive two tickets in the upper deck. A full scholarship at $200,000 would get you four tickets...still in the upper deck. That's just how in demand those lower level tickets are.

I've never been to a game at two ACC arenas--Boston College's Conte Forum, a situation which will be remedied this weekend, and Virginia's John Paul Jones Arena. Of the remaining nine league venues other than Carolina, over half--Clemson, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Miami and Wake Forest--provide no side court seating to students. Florida State's student side court seating is minimal. Of the 6,000-ticket total at Carolina, 2,000 of them are in the lower level. We all like to talk dreamily about Carmichael Auditorium, and it was a great environment. But the 2,000-ticket lower deck allowance for students in the Smith Center is more than the total allotted to them in Carmichael. That's a sobering stat.

The most recent dramatic move in student seating came before the 2000-01 season, when the Rams Club footed the $150,000 bill to install the risers. That was accompanied by a fairly substantial shift in the location of student seats that was engineered by CAA executives. Current students might be surprised to know that all the student seats used to be located in the corner of the arena next to the Tar Heel bench. The CAA agreement spread out those seats.

At the time, the prevailing theory was that spreading out the students would spread out their enthusiasm to other parts of the arena. Whether that's actually happened is debatable, and now there's again been some talk of relocating students to their former location.

But why not just move the students to midcourt and kick the old fogeys out? Because when the Smith Center was being built, Rams Club members stepped up when students wouldn't. That's a harsh reality, but it's true. During the building process, students had the opportunity to approve a fee increase that would have preserved the seating arrangement they had at Carmichael Auditorium. They voted it down. That meant private funding was needed, and Rams Club members contributed the then-unheard of amount of $34 million (roughly $70 million in today's dollars) to the cause. Today's students would argue that they shouldn't be punished for the sins of those who came 20 years before them, and there's merit to that argument. There's not a single person in the Carolina athletic department who doesn't wish the students of 20 years ago had agreed to take the small hit to preserve the Carmichael seating arrangement. But there's no legal remedy to the agreements that were made once the fee increase was defeated. The Smith Center was built prior to the early-90s arena boom. The idea of permanent seat licenses didn't exist--Carolina basically pioneered the concept a decade before the Carolina Panthers made a big splash with it. There was no experience from which to draw. That's how original building donors obtained the rights to their seats for the life of the structure.

Roy Williams wants the best possible home court advantage he can have. That means he's always willing to listen to ideas about how to improve the Smith Center. But they have to be feasible ideas. That means no breaking of legal contracts and some idea of the costs involved with suggestions that involve significant construction (construction of luxury boxes at the top of the lower level is one of those ideas that sounds good but doesn't make good financial sense). Traveling throughout the ACC and the nation is a good reminder that the Tar Heels have the luxury of a spacious, mostly modern venue that remains significantly ahead of most of the school's peers (thinking solely of marquee nonconference games over the past couple years, Arizona and UConn are two examples of schools that would love to have a building like the Smith Center). The infrastructure is there, it just needs some imagination. People who make a difference read this column. So if you've got some ideas, this is a good place to share them. Personally, I don't have the answer. But I'm guessing there's an imaginative, enterprising student (or alum) out there who has a solution.

Brownlow's Down Low
When was the last time UNC gave up 60%+ FG defense? What was the outcome? Has anyone shot over 70%+ in a half vs. UNC before NC State last Saturday? What were those outcomes?
Thad Fine
Louisville, KY

Lauren writes: Surprisingly enough, three teams have actually shot more than 70% in a game against Carolina, and all three instances were Carolina's archrivals. All three shooting performances happened within a year of each other. In February of 1979, Duke shot 73.9% (17-of-23) from the field as the Tar Heels lost, 47-40, in the game with the infamous 7-0 halftime score. NC State is responsible for the next-highest number in February of 1980, shooting 73.5% from the field (25-of-34). The Tar Heels lost 63-50. Duke is responsible for the other 70%-or-more performance against Carolina, shooting 71.7% (33-of-46) from the field just nine days after NC State's 73.5% performance in 1980.

Not every box score from back in the day lists shooting percentages by each half, but for the ones that did, there were 21 times in which a Tar Heel opponent shot 70% or more in a half. NC State's 76.5% in the second half of this year's loss ranks fourth out of 21 on the list. Duke shot 77.8% in the second half against the Tar Heels in 1979 game, which is the highest percentage in a half. In the ACC Tournament championship game in 1982, Virginia shot 7-of-9 from the field (77.8%) against Carolina and 22-of-33 (66.7%) for the game, but the Tar Heels won 47-45. Wake Forest ranks third, shooting 76.9% (20-of-26) in the first half of a game against the Tar Heels in February of 2002. The Deacons shot 58.2% for the game and won, 90-66. NC State also owns the No. 6 spot on the list, shooting 76.2% (16-of-21) against the Tar Heels in the first half of the February 1980 game mentioned earlier. NC State also surpassed 70% in the March 1987 game, shooting 70% (14-of-20) in the second half and 56.5% on the game as the Tar Heels lost, 68-67.

Carolina actually won six out of those 21 games, including a win over Notre Dame in the 1977 NCAA Tournament, when the Fighting Irish shot 15-of-20 (75%) in the second half and 30-of-45 (66.7%) for the game. The Tar Heels shot worse from the field - 44.3% - but made one more field goal than the Irish, which proved to be the difference in a 79-77 Carolina win.

Of the 70% or more performances in a half, Duke owns the most with six. NC State has done it three times. Maryland has also done it three times, the highest being the No. 6 performance overall, a 75.9% (17-of-23) shooting first half against Carolina in January of 1980. Five out of the total 21 performances came in the 1979-80 season, and three of Duke's six performances were from that season as well.

Only a few underdogs have used a strong shooting half to knock off the Tar Heels. William and Mary shot 76.5% in the second half and beat Carolina 78-75 in 1977. In 1985, Villanova was aided by a 16-of-21 (76.2%) second-half performance to knock off Carolina 56-44 on its way to a national title. Villanova shot just 23.1% in the first half.

I was able to find 27 times in which a Carolina opponent shot 60% or more in a game. Duke has done it five times. NC State's 60.5% performance overall was actually just its fourth-best shooting percentage against the Tar Heels. Its 73.5% performance was mentioned earlier, and the Wolfpack have also shot 34-of-52 (65.4%) in February of 1985 in a 86-75 Carolina loss and 37-of-61 (60.6%) in a February 1992 in a 99-94 Carolina loss.

Virginia and Maryland have both done it three times. Wake Forest and Notre Dame have done it twice. Indiana has done it once, and it knocked Carolina out of the NCAA Tournament in 1985 with a 64.9% field-goal percentage.

The last time a team shot 60% or more in a game against Carolina was Boston College last season in the ACC Tournament. The Eagles shot 16-of-24 (66.7%) in the first half and added a second-half performance of 17-for-30 (56.7%) to total 61.1% for the game. The Tar Heels lost 85-82.

Adam Lucas's third book on Carolina basketball, The Best Game Ever, chronicles the 1957 national championship season and is available now. His previous books include Going Home Again, focusing on Roy Williams's return to Carolina, and Led By Their Dreams, a collaboration with Steve Kirschner and Matt Bowers on the 2005 championship team.To submit a Mailbag question, click here.