​This week, college football analysts Phil Steele and Bill Connelly unveiled their 2026 team rankings, adding another layer to the preseason chatter that surrounds the sport. Steele writes Phil Steele’s College Football Preview, a towering 350-plus page annual deep dive that dissects every team’s two-deep depth chart and the hurdles each program faces in the upcoming year. Connelly, renowned for his analytics-driven approach, has authored books on college football metrics, developed SP+, and built a substantial online following that led to an ESPN gig previewing every FBS team and conference. Both preview sets attempt to rank every FBS team, and both carry a history of bold calls and surprising misfires that make their opinions worth closer scrutiny.
In the realm of UNC, both analysts land the Tar Heels squarely in the middle of the FBS field, albeit with modest variances. Steele has UNC at 60 overall, and within the ACC, he slots 12 teams ahead of North Carolina, with Syracuse, Stanford, Cal, and Boston College rated below them. Connelly, meanwhile, places UNC at 57, with Cal sitting just ahead at 56. Taken together, both men view UNC as average on the national scale and near the bottom of the ACC pecking order, at 12th or 13th in their respective rankings.
So, given that UNC is viewed as an average team and faces a challenging schedule, how might they perform in 2026? The project leans toward a lower win total, as is often the case for a squad labeled average that encounters a tougher slate. The Tar Heels will enter the 2026 season amid a high-stakes experiment that, if it yields favorable breaks, could push them into the six- or seven-win range. A closer look at the schedule and the relative strength of the opposition helps illuminate why that might be the outcome.
Here’s a snapshot of UNC’s 2026 opponents as viewed through the two analysts’ lenses. The table below separates the opponents by how highly Steele and Connelly rank them, and the numbers in parentheses indicate the estimated probability of a UNC win against each foe based on their respective metrics:
– Notre Dame and Miami: Both teams loom as formidable tests, with potential for a misstep if UNC makes a couple of costly errors. Each matchup represents a significant challenge that could tilt the season’s outcome in UNC’s direction or against them, depending on how the game plays out on the field.
– TCU: A familiar name that has historically presented a stern test for UNC, often cited as one of the tougher non-conference or mid-conference games on the schedule. Expectations suggest a competitive but difficult contest.
– Clemson: The Tigers remain a high-caliber foe in the ACC, consistently offering a stern test for the Tar Heels. The matchup is one of the season’s marquee games and could serve as a barometer for UNC’s progress.
– Notre Dame: A perennial power in the national conversation, Notre Dame is expected to present a rigorous challenge, regardless of where the game is played.
– Pitt, Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia, NC State: These ACC opponents vary in profile, but all contribute to a schedule that tests UNC’s depth and resilience across the season.
– UConn, Boston College: The non-conference and ACC opponents among these programs represent opportunities to bank wins, though the margins can be slim.
Notably, both Steele and Connelly project that nine UNC opponents will be ranked higher than UNC by their methodologies, with two foes positioned lower. The difference in opinion about a handful of teams underscores the inherent uncertainty that accompanies any preseason forecast: even highly regarded analysts frequently diverge on the relative strength of tiered schedules, especially in a league as volatile as the ACC and with a non-conference slate that includes a mix of quality programs and potential trap games.
Last season’s UNC schedule was widely perceived as comparatively forgiving by many metrics, yielding a more favorable record than some anticipated. This year’s slate—often described as potentially the toughest in two decades—has a different complexion. If TCU’s trajectory from the prior year serves as any guide, this contest is likely to be a meaningful indicator of UNC’s standing, with heavy implications for the remainder of the season. TCU, projected to finish in the 30s again, could be among UNC’s five or six toughest opponents in 2026, depending on how teams perform when the games are played.
In framing UNC’s path, it helps to think in tiers of likelihood, using the ranking estimates as a guide to the probability of success in each tier. Keeping a close eye on the key matchups—Notre Dame, Miami, Clemson, and the other top-tier opponents—will be essential for understanding whether UNC can translate a robust schedule into a breakout season or whether the results align with expectations for an average team facing a demanding slate. The reality is that this is a program in transition, navigating a high-stakes period with the potential for a meaningful leap if everything aligns, or a more modest outcome if adjustments lag. The preseason rankings from Steele and Connelly provide a thoughtful frame for fans to gauge UNC’s prospects as the 2026 season approaches.