UNC going to the SEC?

[Graceland Tar Heel]

I have a hard time believing UNC makes a move to a new conference without Duke. Granted, Duke brings very little to the table in terms of football, but in basketball, it's arguably one of the preeminent rivalries in college sports. I don't see UNC leaving that behind.

SB Nation has a good read on UNC. https://www.sbnation.com/2025/7/29/2447 ... -tar-heels



I think the starting pint for the article is that the author knows how cautious UNC is. That's why it closes nay noting that we cannot know even guess well what CFB will look like in 5 years. That means that UNC acting rashly now may be seen as a stupid move by UNC in 2031.

I agree that that is the basic UNC mindset. I also assert that now UNC leaders are seeing how they are facing something massive inn the insatiable greed of the SEC and BT. Neither league cares a goat turd about destroying college athletics.

So I do think that unless the ACC acts very forcefully to make itself look like a real Top Tier football league UNC is gone by 2026, and so will every other SACC schools that can get into either SEC or BT. The Schools in the ACC that have no chance in Hell of making that cut are very ones the ACC must cut.

Makes makes for CFB wealth and power:

1. State flagship and or Land Grant schools with deep football history, including real rivalries that matter at least regionally.

2. Other large state schools with good football history snd fan support.

3. Schools located in states and TV markets with long histories of passionate CFB watching.

4. Schools located in states and TV markets that produce a lot of D1 CFB players.

5. Schools that have a lot of wealthy boosters who are proven to donate to their school's football program.

So why do I say BC and Syracuse must be booted while I say SMU must be kept in the ACC? BC and Syracuse check none of those boxes. SMU checks 3.

[Dukie]

I don't think UNC gives two schidts about Duke football. They could still play Duke in basketball every year.

You have never been to a UNC-Dook football game. That damned Victory Bell game has meaning. I hate losing that bell as much as I hate Rat-Face. And I am far from alone in that.

I agree the Victory Bell game matters, more than outsiders realize, but also agree that it wouldn't be a thing that stops either school from wanting to move. Nebraska-OU, A&M-UT, the Border War, Bedlam, the Apple Cup, the Civil War--none of those stopped conference moves from happening.

I do, however, think it would matter if the acquiring conference wants both Duke and uNC; that's less likely if the destination for uNC is the $EC, but it's more possible if it's the Big 10.

[EastStang]

And now TCU has ended the Iron Skillet. So another realignment thread, another kitten died. SMU needs to kick the door in. We need to keep on winning. We need to stomp Baylor and the Frogs this year. And get through the ACC schedule with only 1 loss. If we do that, we can be in the CFP and hopefully won't make another trip to the PA tundra. I would love UT at their house. That will never happen because UT won't play us if they can avoid it and we know that the selection committee has cow dung on their brown noses.

[Charleston Pony]

And now TCU has ended the Iron Skillet. So another realignment thread, another kitten died. SMU needs to kick the door in. We need to keep on winning. We need to stomp Baylor and the Frogs this year. And get through the ACC schedule with only 1 loss. If we do that, we can be in the CFP and hopefully won't make another trip to the PA tundra. I would love UT at their house. That will never happen because UT won't play us if they can avoid it and we know that the selection committee has cow dung on their brown noses.

Agree. With the loss to Clemson last year in the ACC Title game, SMU should have been the lower seed and traveled to Austin to play the whorns while Clemson should have traveled to the great white north to take on Ped State. Texas has made it clear they don't want to EVER voluntarily play SMU again and they have tremendous influence in the world of college football.

[highlander]

And now TCU has ended the Iron Skillet. So another realignment thread, another kitten died. SMU needs to kick the door in. We need to keep on winning. We need to stomp Baylor and the Frogs this year. And get through the ACC schedule with only 1 loss. If we do that, we can be in the CFP and hopefully won't make another trip to the PA tundra. I would love UT at their house. That will never happen because UT won't play us if they can avoid it and we know that the selection committee has cow dung on their brown noses.

Yeah, I hate to put so much emphasis on a single season, but this might be the most important year for SMU football for several years to come. Obviously I can't see the future, but with everything going on with potential realignment, this feels like a make-or-break season.

[Otto]

And now TCU has ended the Iron Skillet. So another realignment thread, another kitten died. SMU needs to kick the door in. We need to keep on winning. We need to stomp Baylor and the Frogs this year. And get through the ACC schedule with only 1 loss. If we do that, we can be in the CFP and hopefully won't make another trip to the PA tundra. I would love UT at their house. That will never happen because UT won't play us if they can avoid it and we know that the selection committee has cow dung on their brown noses.

Absolutely right about stomping Baylor High and Froggy High -- can't stand either of them.
But as much as I hate them winning the ACC is a bigger deal.
I also think that we're a year or 2 away from shifting into another gear of winning, mostly because of the outrageously talented linemen who are on the way.

[PlanoStang]

Speculation, hearsay, and click bait

[jkflamebo]

FSU-> BIG
UNC-> SEC
CLEM-> BIG or SEC
ND-> BIG (up to ND if they want to give up independence)
Virginia Tech, NC State, Miami, Duke -> ???

ACC bent the knee and took the exit fee way down. There will be movement around 2030 or sooner. The above regarding FSU and Clem are likely. Others up in the air. Maybe ACC can keep UNC some way some how with the state political ties, but it's an uphill battle.

SMU needs to keep WINNING and stay in the conversation. Maybe we get into super league...maybe we stay in watered down ACC...maybe ACC gets aggressive and poaches from the Big 12 (I like this concept the most). If you wait, you die. See Pac 12.

[EastStang]

We just need to keep winning. If we do that, good things can happen. Would the Big10 want to expand to Texas? Who would they want? That's why we have to kick in the door.

[Drum Major]

We just need to keep winning. If we do that, good things can happen. Would the Big10 want to expand to Texas? Who would they want? That's why we have to kick in the door.

That's a great thought! I hadn't even considered a future like that (Battered Pony Syndrome), but it does make sense that the BIG would want a team in Texas. We'd have to do some serious, consistent winning for that, though.

[highlander]

We just need to keep winning. If we do that, good things can happen. Would the Big10 want to expand to Texas? Who would they want? That's why we have to kick in the door.

That's a great thought! I hadn't even considered a future like that (Battered Pony Syndrome), but it does make sense that the BIG would want a team in Texas. We'd have to do some serious, consistent winning for that, though.

Let's see... the B1G currently has Maryland, NWern, Purdue, UCLA and Rutgers. If they don't want us, it won't be because of a perceived lack of football prowess.

You're right -- as long as we keep on winning.

[TexanMark]

Drop Cuse? Stupid take

The fan base is larger than you think. Only major program in NY.
Way more Football History and Tradition than most ACC schools.

Nobody living in any other part off the country cares a single jot about CFB in the northeast unless PSU is involved. Simple basic fact. And that has gotten worse every decade since the 1960s. It is not going to reverse itself. The ACC cannot afford to hang onto the northeast. If the ACC can survive as Major it will have shed itself of that region.

And among other things, that means that the more the rest of the ACC members refuse to see that fact the more they guarantee that soon after after 2030, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Miami, and probably 2 or 3 others will be out the door. At that pint, the value of the remaining ACC will be less than the value of the current Pac. The Big 12 then would certainly fond investors to help take all of the following ACC schools if they are not added to SEC or BT: VT, NCSU, Pitt, (Backyard Brawl is far more valuable than any Syracuse or BC game against anyone), Louisville, GT, probably SMU.

Bringing in the NE schools was what gave critical mass to ESPN bean counters the ACCN would work. Four schools in one state (NC) was a huge detriment to make the ACCN nums work. UNC favorite son Swofford had already put the ACC behind with that ridiculous deal to save Raycom. The Big 12's network is ESPN+ let that sink in.

UNC, UVA, Duke and Wake Forest all drew less TV numbers than BC, Pitt and Cuse in '24. We all know these numbers are hugely affected by Channel, kick time, opponent, etc...but the point stands that if UNC went to the SEC they won't carry FB nums by themselves. They would be at best South Carolina with a 40% smaller home crowd. UNC would be invited into the SEC for a new state and basketball. They bring little in FB themselves.

I won't deny that college football is not as popular in most NE states as parts of the Midwest, Texas and the Deep South but you still need to include all regions in Power Football or it will become a regional sport in itself. Penn State can't carry the NE. Lots of fans still despise the program with the Paterno/Sandusky crimes. Kill off more teams in the NE and it will be just more NFL watchers.

You also forget that conferences aren't made up just for guys playing FB Risk on a game board...many factors go into what college Presidents are looking for in conference members.

[ponyte]

From a football standpoint, is the SEC worth it? Sure money is king. But let's look at Lashley's comments. Last 50 years only six schools have won the SEC. One exception is '76 when Kentucky shared a co championship with Georgia. Next non big 6 was in '63 Old Miss. Next, GA Tech in '52 and the next is Tulane in '49. Recent additions have not faired well in football. If the CFP is the goal, the SEC isn't an advantage.

Now all said and done other factors are important (other than just money). Will the market continue to support constant realignment (so far it has)? Will government take an interest in realignment (sooner or later some elected official is gonna get his/her feelings hurt cause their beloved school got passed over). Will any that cause pause, don't know.

As the move towards only two relevant conferences increases, so too with concern and suspicion from those excluded.

We just need to win to make our product more desirable to the Big 2 conferences for now.

[highlander]

From a football standpoint, is the SEC worth it? Sure money is king. But let's look at Lashley's comments. Last 50 years only six schools have won the SEC. One exception is '76 when Kentucky shared a co championship with Georgia. Next non big 6 was in '63 Old Miss. Next, GA Tech in '52 and the next is Tulane in '49. Recent additions have not faired well in football. If the CFP is the goal, the SEC isn't an advantage.

Now all said and done other factors are important (other than just money). Will the market continue to support constant realignment (so far it has)? Will government take an interest in realignment (sooner or later some elected official is gonna get his/her feelings hurt cause their beloved school got passed over). Will any that cause pause, don't know.

As the move towards only two relevant conferences increases, so too with concern and suspicion from those excluded.

We just need to win to make our product more desirable to the Big 2 conferences for now.

Schools have stated loud and clear that the CFP is a distant second in importance to an extra $10mil a year. From a CFP standpoint, UT and OU would have been much better off staying in the B12 where they have dominated, and where they would have had a much better chance of making the CFP. UW and USC would have been better off staying in the PAC12.

a 30-team B1G-SEC super league would be better in the short term for those 30 schools, but long term would be horrible for college football. It would result in millions of FORMER college football fans.

[ponyte]

From a football standpoint, is the SEC worth it? Sure money is king. But let's look at Lashley's comments. Last 50 years only six schools have won the SEC. One exception is '76 when Kentucky shared a co championship with Georgia. Next non big 6 was in '63 Old Miss. Next, GA Tech in '52 and the next is Tulane in '49. Recent additions have not faired well in football. If the CFP is the goal, the SEC isn't an advantage.

Now all said and done other factors are important (other than just money). Will the market continue to support constant realignment (so far it has)? Will government take an interest in realignment (sooner or later some elected official is gonna get his/her feelings hurt cause their beloved school got passed over). Will any that cause pause, don't know.

As the move towards only two relevant conferences increases, so too with concern and suspicion from those excluded.

We just need to win to make our product more desirable to the Big 2 conferences for now.

Schools have stated loud and clear that the CFP is a distant second in importance to an extra $10mil a year. From a CFP standpoint, UT and OU would have been much better off staying in the B12 where they have dominated, and where they would have had a much better chance of making the CFP. UW and USC would have been better off staying in the PAC12.

a 30-team B1G-SEC super league would be better in the short term for those 30 schools, but long term would be horrible for college football. It would result in millions of FORMER college football fans.

And that's my main point. Will the market bear the current trend? Time will tell. Generally, monopolies (other than government delegated) don't serve the customer and eventually lose market share.