Story via The Athletic:
North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham told The Athletic on Wednesday that the Tar Heels’ code-named exploration of conference realignment was “very, very logical” amid fresh local scrutiny into the Carolina Blue matter.
“We had two conference members sue the conference. You don’t know what the outcome is going to be,” Cunningham said. “So just doing our due diligence of ‘What are some scenarios that could happen? And how do we best position ourselves for a future that is uncertain?’ That’s as simple as it is.”
Cunningham’s remarks were the first public statements by a UNC official since The Athletic last week reported the Tar Heels spent $600,000 in realignment-related legal expenses from the fall of 2022 through November 2024. During that time frame, Florida State and Clemson filed suit against the ACC amid major shakeups in the college conference landscape. Bills to the out-of-state law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP labeled the work only as related to the “Carolina Blue matter.” The university declined to say what the work was for, but two senior UNC officials confirmed last week that the code name referred to conference realignment.
“It’s not quite the Magnificent Seven, but it’s OK,” Cunningham joked in a reference to the nickname for seven ACC schools that explored potential exits in 2023.
The Carolina Blue matter is now a matter for the Orange County (N.C.) Superior Court because of a public records lawsuit filed Wednesday. David McKenzie, a local lawyer whose work includes First Amendment cases, accused UNC of illegally withholding its full legal bills with Skadden — documents he had requested under public records laws. His suit also contended that vague bills UNC has released appear to be a “deliberate effort to create a misleading public-facing record.”
“Through both its secretive billing review process and its refusal to disclose full and accurate records, UNC has violated the Public Records Law in layers,” the 111-page suit said. “The University’s actions are not mere oversights — they are deliberate efforts to evade transparency and accountability.”
Included in McKenzie’s suit are the monthly $7,500 “court reporting” charges Skadden billed to UNC from June 2024 to November 2024, according to documents obtained by The Athletic. McKenzie challenged the nature of those figures — court reporting fees are usually by-the-page bills for transcripts and rarely total round numbers — and the lack of detail because Skadden has not represented UNC in a realignment-related court case.
Cunningham explained them as North Carolina’s means of keeping Skadden “on retainer.”
“So that, should things change,” he added, “we’re prepared and we already have somebody that we’ve been engaged with.”
But according to Cunningham, after consulting with Skadden, UNC never got close to taking legal action against the ACC — unlike Florida State and Clemson, which have challenged the contracts that bind schools to the league as it falls financially behind the Big Ten and SEC. “We were in a holding pattern,” Cunningham said, “but we didn’t think it was necessary for us to file.” In an email exchange from April 2024 obtained by The Athletic, former UNC Board of Trustees member Chuck Duckett wrote to current board chairperson John Preyer: “Let FSU and Clemson pay the attorneys and see what happens. … We all learn via their expense.”
Documents show that North Carolina was engaged with Skadden through at least November, but Cunningham said he doesn’t know whether the Tar Heels are still contracting with the firm. He expounded on the scope of Skadden’s work, however, saying it was more internally focused on UNC — the school’s brand value, for instance, and its most attractive qualities should future realignment occur — than surveying the larger landscape.
“Our responsibility is to Carolina,” Cunningham said. “What can we do to position ourselves best? And what are all the factors that contribute to how attractive we are, both to the ACC or another league, should something happen nationally?”
The Tar Heels have been viewed nationally as an intriguing wild card in realignment scenarios, if they wanted to or could leave the ACC before the league’s grant of rights ends in 2036. UNC has the academic profile, size and geography to fit in either Power 2 conference. Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC has a school in North Carolina, a large, growing state, and the Tar Heels have a storied basketball tradition to pair with a football program that just hired NFL coaching legend Bill Belichick.
“We’ve always said we support the league,” Cunningham said of the ACC, “and we’re going to continue to be a strong member.”
North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham told The Athletic on Wednesday that the Tar Heels’ code-named exploration of conference realignment was “very, very logical” amid fresh local scrutiny into the Carolina Blue matter.
“We had two conference members sue the conference. You don’t know what the outcome is going to be,” Cunningham said. “So just doing our due diligence of ‘What are some scenarios that could happen? And how do we best position ourselves for a future that is uncertain?’ That’s as simple as it is.”
Cunningham’s remarks were the first public statements by a UNC official since The Athletic last week reported the Tar Heels spent $600,000 in realignment-related legal expenses from the fall of 2022 through November 2024. During that time frame, Florida State and Clemson filed suit against the ACC amid major shakeups in the college conference landscape. Bills to the out-of-state law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP labeled the work only as related to the “Carolina Blue matter.” The university declined to say what the work was for, but two senior UNC officials confirmed last week that the code name referred to conference realignment.
“It’s not quite the Magnificent Seven, but it’s OK,” Cunningham joked in a reference to the nickname for seven ACC schools that explored potential exits in 2023.
The Carolina Blue matter is now a matter for the Orange County (N.C.) Superior Court because of a public records lawsuit filed Wednesday. David McKenzie, a local lawyer whose work includes First Amendment cases, accused UNC of illegally withholding its full legal bills with Skadden — documents he had requested under public records laws. His suit also contended that vague bills UNC has released appear to be a “deliberate effort to create a misleading public-facing record.”
“Through both its secretive billing review process and its refusal to disclose full and accurate records, UNC has violated the Public Records Law in layers,” the 111-page suit said. “The University’s actions are not mere oversights — they are deliberate efforts to evade transparency and accountability.”
Included in McKenzie’s suit are the monthly $7,500 “court reporting” charges Skadden billed to UNC from June 2024 to November 2024, according to documents obtained by The Athletic. McKenzie challenged the nature of those figures — court reporting fees are usually by-the-page bills for transcripts and rarely total round numbers — and the lack of detail because Skadden has not represented UNC in a realignment-related court case.
Cunningham explained them as North Carolina’s means of keeping Skadden “on retainer.”
“So that, should things change,” he added, “we’re prepared and we already have somebody that we’ve been engaged with.”
But according to Cunningham, after consulting with Skadden, UNC never got close to taking legal action against the ACC — unlike Florida State and Clemson, which have challenged the contracts that bind schools to the league as it falls financially behind the Big Ten and SEC. “We were in a holding pattern,” Cunningham said, “but we didn’t think it was necessary for us to file.” In an email exchange from April 2024 obtained by The Athletic, former UNC Board of Trustees member Chuck Duckett wrote to current board chairperson John Preyer: “Let FSU and Clemson pay the attorneys and see what happens. … We all learn via their expense.”
Documents show that North Carolina was engaged with Skadden through at least November, but Cunningham said he doesn’t know whether the Tar Heels are still contracting with the firm. He expounded on the scope of Skadden’s work, however, saying it was more internally focused on UNC — the school’s brand value, for instance, and its most attractive qualities should future realignment occur — than surveying the larger landscape.
“Our responsibility is to Carolina,” Cunningham said. “What can we do to position ourselves best? And what are all the factors that contribute to how attractive we are, both to the ACC or another league, should something happen nationally?”
The Tar Heels have been viewed nationally as an intriguing wild card in realignment scenarios, if they wanted to or could leave the ACC before the league’s grant of rights ends in 2036. UNC has the academic profile, size and geography to fit in either Power 2 conference. Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC has a school in North Carolina, a large, growing state, and the Tar Heels have a storied basketball tradition to pair with a football program that just hired NFL coaching legend Bill Belichick.
“We’ve always said we support the league,” Cunningham said of the ACC, “and we’re going to continue to be a strong member.”
