By Adam Lucas

As promised, this week's Mailbag will tackle some of the seating suggestions and comments that were raised after the previous column on the subject. Because there's a lot going on this week, we'll also have an extra edition of the Mailbag tomorrow. That one will be more of a "normal" column, with questions and comments about the current state of the Tar Heels.

But first, a quick call for comments on a completely different subject. Although it doesn't seem like it can possibly be time for this already, next week is the ACC Tournament. Despite the fact that it's in Tampa this year, Tournament weekend is traditionally one of the highlights of the Tobacco Road spring calendar. So, next week we want to run some of our readers' favorite ACC Tournament memories. It doesn't have to be from actually attending the games--in fact, some of the best often take place outside the arena.

I'll get you started--in Wake County public schools, the policy used to be that every absence was either an excused absence or an unexcused absence (I don't know if that's still the case because now I'm old). For excused absences, you could make up the work. If it was an unexcused absence, teachers weren't required to let you make it up.

But excused absences were supposed to be illness-related in almost all situations. So it took some creative note-writing on the part of my parents to get me excused absences for all the Fridays that I spent at the ACC Tournament. Most teachers accepted the, "Adam was unexpectedly sick on Friday" notes with a wink and a smile the next Monday. Only one teacher, who I won't name except to say that her name started with Mrs. and ended with Todd, wouldn't accept it. My high school English teacher, Jill Whitaker, once asked me on the Wednesday of Tournament week, "So, do you plan to be sick on Friday?" In addition to being a great teacher, Mrs. Whitaker always had her priorities in order.

There was nothing cooler than going to Charlotte for the weekend and knowing you were going to sit through seven straight games of ACC basketball, picking a favorite (or, sometimes more likely, a villain) to root for or against in each game. Usually, if you planned it just right, you could bring in the Tar Heel Sports Network's NCAA pairings show on the way home, fill in your bracket, and then shoot baskets in the driveway as soon as you got home--obviously, enacting each potential matchup along the road to the Final Four. A major requirement for the last shot of the night was to say, "If I make this one, Carolina wins the title," and then keep shooting until you made it.

One of my favorite Tournaments was the 1998 event in Greensboro. I somehow ended up sitting next to Shammond Williams's mother, a wonderful lady who got very into the games. The Tar Heels played Duke in the championship game, and when Antawn Jamison dunked on Roshown McLeod right in front of us, I really thought Shammond's mom was headed onto the court.

One of my least favorite Tournaments was the 1996 disaster in which Clemson beat Carolina in the first round. You probably had to live through it to understand the fervor that surrounded any Clemson-Carolina matchup in those days. This was the peak of the Rick Barnes-Dean Smith feud era, and it ignited some very passionate responses on both sides. Tournament organizers for some reason thought it would be a good idea to place the Clemson band in front of the Carolina seats. The game was close throughout, and as the two groups traded insults throughout the evening, it quickly became obvious that things were not going to end well.

Greg Buckner dunked the Tar Heels on the last Clemson possession of the game, which prompted the Tiger band to engage in some heated dialogue with the Carolina fans behind them. The next thing I know, one of the Clemson trumpet players is flipping us the bird...which was soon followed by my mild-mannered father flinging his Carolina blue pom-pom at the unsuspecting trumpet player from several rows above. Sadly, the wind caught the pom-pom and it was not a direct hit. But it remains one of the coolest things my dad has ever done at a game (followed closely by the time after a frustrating loss in the Smith Center--in which the row in front of us was populated entirely by visiting fans--that he informed one of the state's biggest businessmen that if he didn't have any friends who weren't fans of a certain school a few miles down the road, he should quit coming to games).

What ACC Tournament memories do you have? Let us know and we'll use the best in next week's column. The best email or two will receive a book.

Now, on to the seating topic. We got a flood of emails on this subject. This situation reminds me of Roy Williams's radio show. It always seems to surprise people when he's asked, "Have you thought about..." and he immediately answers "Yes." It's his life, and he spends every hour of every day thinking about it.

It's similar with tickets. Believe it or not, there are multiple people in the Carolina athletic department who deal with this issue every single day--not just during basketball season. No matter how novel an idea you think you come up with, they've already heard it, which was reinforced when I took a batch of fan suggestions to administrators with a background in Smith Center seating. The biggest misconception that exists is that the athletic department is somehow working against the students. That couldn't be further from the truth--and when you really think about it, it doesn't make any sense. What possible reason could there be for them to work against students?

Anyway, on with the questions. I've got to compliment everyone who wrote in with well-reasoned suggestions. It was an educational process for me to find out some answers to frequently raised topics, and hopefully you'll find something worthwhile below.

I've always wanted to know why the risers are only at the UNC bench end of the Dean Dome. I've always said that I (and I think most students) would make the following trade: Give the students another set of risers (which can seat 500 students) at the opposite basket. This wipes out maybe 300 or 400 alum seats (about 10 rows of seats. In return the alums (we'll use alums to refer to Rams Club and their block of seats) can have as many seats as the students gain by having the risers, including the Fever section (higher up in section 100) and the seats behind the visitor's bench. So, the alums gain seat numbers, and the student are happy (at least, I would be). The only problem would be those in the seats courtside that are being moved, they'd have to be "lured away" by the best seats in section 106ish.
Ryan Campbell
UNC class of 2007

This seems like a reasonable idea. The first riser section was a hit, so why not add another one? As it turns out, there's a very good reason. Carolina looked into the possibility of adding a second group of risers, but it's not structurally possible. The reason they work at the current end is because of the two tunnels. They provide some cushion to pull out the risers while not interfering with traffic flow along the baseline. That same cushion doesn't exist on the other end, which is why athletic department officials eventually had to give up on the idea.

You mentioned that luxury boxes at the top of the lower level is an idea for potentially improved student seating that sounds good but doesn't make good financial sense and that there is a legal side of the issue in that those lower level seats are "owned" for life by their patrons. Since it isn't possible to break the legal contract with the owners of the lower level seats, would it be possible to ask them to switch their seat with that of a new luxury box? The students would then be able to move into the seats vacated by those owners. You may say this still doesn't solve the financial feasibility issue. The students of today claim that they shouldn't be punished for the decision 20 years ago to not fund more of the Dean Dome. Here's their chance. They could fund the new luxury boxes (or a major portion thereof) which will allow some of these lower seat patrons to move up to an even more comfortable and advantageous seat while allowing for the lower level seats to be used by students. In effect, today's students would be able to "buy" these lower level seats from today's patrons by building them luxury boxes.
Gary Bean
Lawrenceville, GA

Most people don't know that when the Smith Center was originally built, there were 12 "boxes" at the top of the lower level. It's probably a stretch to call them "luxury boxes," but they were definitely boxes. They were an option for some Rams Club members, but the donors uniformly preferred to be closer to the action. Since the original construction, several of those boxes have been eliminated in order to add more lower level seats.

There are two issues with recreating the boxes. The first is cost--in today's world, luxury boxes require things like bathrooms, which require plumbing, which require retrofitting the existing building. That issue could be solved with (lots of) money.

The other issue is more complex. Donors already had the chance to sit in that location, and they spurned it. It's by no means a certainty that the option of boxes would be well received by the folks who would have to make the move. Even if there was a major clamor for them, however, it wouldn't solve quite as many problems as you might think. Part of the attraction of luxury boxes is the option to have more seats. You wouldn't split up a box among multiple donors, so each box would be taken by one business/family/group. Let's say all 12 boxes were reinstituted and the current occupants (familes of coaches, media, etc.) were booted. That only opens spaces for 12 current donors to move...leaving hundreds of donors with their current seats. While it sounds like a great idea on its face, it simply wouldn't solve as many problems as you might assume.

I feel that the alumni should be booed at every game that they leave early. This had a visible effect on the crowd at the Wake game. I felt that less people left when the riser section, including myself, chanted "Game's Not Over" to the fleeting alumni. Why do the people with the best seats leave the earliest? I can't think of a better way to end a game than with my arms over the shoulders of a stranger singing Hark the Sound. As for the student location ideas. One of the best would be to move the students' section in section 107 and swap it with the alumni section of 118. It will unite the student section of 116,117, and 118 and allow the alumni to have a better view of the court. A unified student section is the key. The number of seats seems to be near the same amount and I see no reason why the alumni would object to a courtside seat rather than a corner one.
Drew Waddell
Sophomore

Here's a good example of how the two groups have trouble talking to each other. I'm with you, Drew, that no one should ever leave a game early. But I have a wife who doesn't mind my addiction to sports, an ample supply of grandparents (read: babysitters) within an easy drive of Chapel Hill, and a job that means I don't have to be at work at 8 a.m. the next day. I also remember my days as a college student (although, of course, the memories are available only in black and white), when walking out of a 9 p.m. game at 11:15 meant there were still several hours left in the day.

Unfortunately, not everyone lives in the college student or sportswriter world. I'll grant you that there are some people leaving the Smith Center early who have no reason to leave other than simply wanting to arrive home 10 minutes early. But to say all alums who leave early (and can we extend that to students who arrive late, too?) should be booed is a little harsh. It's worth noting that it's much easier to see people arriving late/leaving early when they aren't sitting in your section. This is why alums often say students are the biggest culprit and vice versa--you usually don't see the offenders in your own section.

Anyway, back to Drew's point. Your plan might work. But you'd have to sell students on the idea of having zero side court seats, something that has been a point of contention. And there are some student moves on the way. The Carolina Fever section that's currently located in section 100, plus the student seats in the top of 104, will be relocated next year to section 114 and 115 above row M. That puts them back with other students and eliminates the odd fracture between the risers and Fever.

Longtime Smith Center patrons will remember that the students used to be in one big group over the Tar Heel tunnel. But in a move that was requested, supported, and backed by CAA, they gave up that arrangement to spread out throughout the arena. The theory was that it might spread their enthusiasm throughout the arena. After several years of the new seating plan, it's fair to conclude that it didn't quite have the intended impact, and students probably need to be in one location. In all likelihood, you're sitting there going, "Well, I could've told you that." But the reality is that students were in favor of the move at the time. In some ways, the athletic department is in a no-win situation--they take flack if they try something new that doesn't work, and they take flack if they don't try something new.

Regarding your article today, one stat that I think you did not address is the percentage of students that get tickets. As a student, and a fan, I am often disgruntled by the fact that I can't get tickets (this year, with countless hours of scheming, begging, and plotting, I have been able to go to 6 games). I think either 1) students need more seats or 2) a new distribution system needs to be put in place to sift out the students that will actually go to the games.

Regarding the first issue, I was wondering how our allotment of tickets (6,000) compares to other schools as a percentage of the student body. In other words, what percentage of students get to go to games? How does this compare to other schools? How much revenue would it cost the school to increase the student allotment to 8,000-10,000?

Regarding the second issue, I know this is not your doing, but the new distribution system sucks. I've heard people argue that students don't deserve more/better seats, because they don't use all the ones they currently have. While this is undoubtedly true, it simply points out that the tickets are being given to the wrong people. Many games have been sold out while I sit at home and watch on my TV. Certainly there must be a system that would identify which students really want to go. I'm not in favor of tenting (and I totally agree with your assessment of the crazies), but a completely random lottery isn't the answer.
Mike Lee

The ticket distribution policy will be changed for next year. The likely changes are that lottery winners will just be given one ticket (doubling the number of lottery winners) and student seats will be general admission. Also, a student standby line will exist outside the Smith Center. At the first TV timeout, members of the line will get to claim seats that have gone unfilled to that point. Those are significant changes that should enhance the atmosphere, because it gets the most rabid fans closer to the action and it creates a penalty for late arrivals while giving lottery losers another chance to see the game.

Mike raises a good question about the percentage of students who get to attend games. Check out the following chart:

I'm guessing those numbers are surprising to some people. As expected, there's a big gap between the two smaller private schools and some of the bigger public institutions, but Carolina is far and away the leader among public schools in terms of the percentage of students who have the ability to attend games. Carolina's numbers are especially impressive when you consider the enormous alumni base that lives within driving distance of the Smith Center and would love to attend games. It would be very easy (And very profitable--simply scaling back to the next highest total enrollment percentage, BC's 16%, would create over 1,500 more season tickets for the school to sell. At $40 per individual game ticket, that's a windfall of approximately a million dollars per season that UNC is leaving on the table) for the UNC administration to reduce student seats to accommodate the alums. The fact that they haven't is one of the advantages of the Smith Center most people never think about.

Ketul Gondha

You've got a much better chance of bringing back the original proposal than you have of funding a buy-back through the "coffers of the merchandising department." As far as I know, those coffers are considerably more shallow than you might expect.

What are you going to do with the donors who simply don't want to sell their seats back? I suspect that number would be higher than you might think.

The campout ticket system is another popular question--and that's just from my wife. She was a member of the class that camped out overnight--in the cold, during a blizzard, while fending off polar bears and being forced to build fires just to ward off hypothermia--for Duke tickets. But if you're angry at the ticket office about that change, you're misplacing your anger. That call is made by the Office of Student Affairs, which was concerned about the behavior of some students and the potential liability incurred by having students (for example) run in front of buses during campouts.

Moving the media seating is another popular suggestion and a great example of the many masters the University must serve. Ideally, in a fan-centric world, the media would move upstairs--or perhaps to the top of section 113 rather than the bottom. The ticket office would definitely support that idea.

But then you'd experience friction from athletic communications, which already took some flak for moving the media from their previous courtside location. I can't think of an arena in the ACC where the media sits upstairs--Georgia Tech probably comes the closest. Now, that doesn't mean it's impossible. Kentucky puts their overflow media in what's equivalent to Carolina's "ring" of the upper deck. It's a fantastic seat to watch plays develop. The only problem is that by moving writers away from the court, you're eliminating some of those inside-the-game stories that only come from being able to see facial expressions or watch body language closely.

Personally, as someone who has sat upstairs both at Kentucky and NC State (in the hockey press box, which is in a different zip code than the rest of the RBC Center) while covering games, I think it would be a great move. I also think the vast majority of the media would strenuously oppose it.

I've always been curious if the lower arena could be entirely reconfigured by lowering the court. I mean actually digging deeper into the ground then creating a steeper slope in the lower arena where it would feel like the fans were more on top of the court. While I do not think we need corporate suites, this kind of total re-do of the lower arena could potentially allow for the addition of suites (and possibly more revenue).
Richard Macon
Winston-Salem

It's actually been discussed, but it appears the area beneath the Smith Center is not geologically conducive to that type of change.

Let's end the column by dispelling some common Smith Center myths. Use this as a handy reference any time you hear someone spouting ill-informed "facts" about the seating situation.

The athletic department doesn't want the students to have better seats.
The athletic department would absolutely love for the students to have better seats. So would Roy Williams and the basketball program. But both groups have to operate within the confines of the reality that exists.

The Smith Center is the only arena in the country that doesn't give students prime side court seats.
Simply within the ACC, these schools have no side court student seating--none, not even the limited amount students currently have at Carolina--at all: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest, and Boston College. That's half the league.

Know another place where students are relegated to the corners? Kansas, where there isn't a single student seat between the baselines--but it is still considered one of the toughest environments in college basketball. Marketing honcho Rick Steinbacher made a research trip to an SEC school during football season to get some gridiron atmosphere ideas. Expect Carolina administrators to make a trip to Allen Field House a priority in order to see how the Jayhawks pull off keeping their donors happy while retaining a rabid student presence.

Students get less seats at Carolina than anywhere else.
False. Check the charts in last week's column and this week's column.

Donors have all the good lower level Smith Center seats.
Donors do have some of the good lower level seats. But other groups also have some of those seats, including the basketball office (one point everyone can probably agree on is that the families of the players deserve to sit most anywhere they want) and the chancellor.

The Rams Club is getting rich off basketball seating.
They wish. The Rams Club funds every athletic scholarship at Carolina. When they get a donation for basketball seats, the money usually goes straight to the scholarship fund. So in a roundabout way, those basketball tickets are paying for the players on the floor--not to mention the players you love to watch in every other sport at Carolina--to attend school. Just another reason why it's worth it to join the Rams Club. Sure, you might not be able to afford the substantial amount required for a scholarship donation. But there's still a measure of pride in knowing you're giving a student-athlete the same college experience so many Carolina students have treasured.

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.