House Bill 965 would require by law that high-enrollment institutions — universities with a population of 30,000 or more undergraduate and graduate students — must play at least one game against another high-enrollment institution and a non-high-enrollment institution that houses a high-level football team within the UNC System each year. It would also require NC State and UNC-Chapel Hill to continue to face off each year.

While the UNC Intrastate Athletic Competition bill passed through committee in early June, North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore promptly struck it down. Although HB 965 as we know it will not advance, primary sponsor of the bill Rep. Jake Johnson said nothing is ever dead in the legislature, and he would consider revisiting the legislation when the long session begins in January if the issue is still a point of concern. 

Johnson said economic development was a driving factor behind the legislation because while ticket sales were high for games between neighboring universities such as Appalachian State and East Carolina, the same could not be said when UNC System schools play Division II teams from across state lines.

“That bleeds into the restaurants aren’t as busy, the hotels aren’t as full, and it was a big economic development hit for, especially, a lot of these smaller towns that really bank on some of these big market games,” Johnson said. “If you’re going to play somebody outside of your division, let’s make it where it’s going to draw the fanfare and be good for the fanbases.”

Joe Ovies of the Ovies & Giglio sports podcast and former radio show agreed that intrastate tourism is something to consider in scheduling. Because while it may only be a day trip for the NC State football team, fans may use it as an excuse for a weekend getaway.

“Get there on a Friday night, you go to Booneshine [Brewing Co.], you go to [Appalachian Mountain Brewery], you hang out, you get into new restaurants, you go to the game,” Ovies said. “That’s money that goes into those local economies. You’re going to get more State fans, more Carolina fans making that trip to App State, than you would say, Minnesota coming to town, and I would say the same thing on the flip side of that.”

As for NC State and UNC’s rivalry matchup, Ovies said this aspect of the bill stood out considering the teams already do play each other consistently. He said it could be a sign of anxiety surrounding recent conference realignment.

“I don’t think it’s much of a stretch that people in the [North Carolina General Assembly] are worried about what might happen to the ACC and that NC State and North Carolina go their separate ways in some form or fashion,” Ovies said. “It could be that Carolina goes to another conference and NC State’s back here in the ACC. It could be that they end up in two different conferences outside the ACC.”

Ovies pointed to Texas A&M’s shift to the SEC in 2012, effectively ending the rivalry between the Aggies and the University of Texas at Austin’s Longhorns for the past thirteen years. He said he thinks this legislation might be working to avoid a similar fate for North Carolina should UNC and NC State find themselves in different conferences in the future.

Intrastate rivalry was a consideration in the conception of HB 965. A UNC-Charlotte alum, Johnson recalled the win over Duke in 2021 as energizing the program and its fanbase. While Johnson considers this policy to be a priority, he’s hopeful there are other ways of reaching a consensus outside of a mandate.

“We’re really excited about these intrastate games, but we don’t want to have to legislate it,” Johnson said. “If we could sit down and agree on a schedule, we’d much rather do that than have to pass a law to mandate it. So hopefully this was a good stepping stone that we can start negotiations next year on getting a schedule where everyone agrees on it.”

As for why this iteration of the bill didn’t surpass committee hearings, Johnson said the current budget debate is the predominant focus of the General Assembly.

“You’ll see some bills being heard, but the big item on the agenda right now is just getting the budget done,” Johnson said. “I don’t think we want other negotiations getting in the way of that and it slowing things down. So I think it’s more of a timing deal than it is being bad policy.”

Should the legislation resurface in January, Johnson said he hopes to bring student athletes in to speak on the policy themselves.