Basketball is evolving. UNC’s Dean Dome should, too | Opinion

For an alternative perspective on the Dean Dome, from deputy Opinion Editor Paige Masten: UNC is already losing its identity. The Smith Center must stay.

Seth Trimble’s last-second 3-pointer to defeat Duke added another great moment in the University of North Carolina’s storied basketball history. It also added yet another reason that many want to keep the Dean Smith Center as a repository of Tar Heel glory.

But it’s also notable that the man for whom the arena is named coached for much of his career before the 3-point shot was introduced. Smith was also an avid practitioner of the four corners offense, a maddening stall tactic eliminated by the introduction of the shot clock.

Things change, but many want to preserve the Smith Center in an amber of nostalgia. The feeling is strongest closest to the basketball program.

Former Tar Heels coach and College Hall of Famer Roy Williams is opposed to a proposal to build a new arena off campus. He supports repairs and renovations to the Smith Center. Tyler Hansbrough, the program’s and the ACC’s all-time leading scorer, feels the same. So do many other former players. So do the big donors who have prime Smith Center seats.

Supporters of preserving the Smith Center are looking back when they should be looking forward. And looking forward, it’s clear that the arena that opened in 1986 as a hulking, concrete venue topped by a massive dome evocative of the Pantheon is as much an artifact as it is a shrine.

Arena construction has improved in the last 40 years. Arenas are now more flexible and easily adapted to multiple uses. The seating is reduced, but sightlines are better. New arenas are easier to move around in and have better acoustics for concerts. They conserve water and are more energy efficient. UNC was proud of the Smith Center’s 21,000-seat capacity, but now it seems pointless to watch a game from seats so high you can’t see the ball go in the basket. The era of bigger is better is over.

It’s time for a new Smith Center in a new location. Building one on the Carolina North campus a couple of miles off the main campus may be too far away, though the financial arguments for it are compelling.

The middle option is building at Odum Village, a dormant 14-acre site formerly used for married students housing. It’s the best choice. It would keep basketball games on campus and avoid the disruption of having the team play elsewhere while the Smith Center undergoes repairs and upgrading. And it would create a new arena that would get more frequent and varied use.

A fresh architectural design is only part of the reason to move on from the current Smith Center. Planners must account for changes in the structure of college basketball itself.

Coach Smith would be bewildered by the teeming transfer portal and college players being paid millions of dollars under name, image and likeness deals. He’d be alarmed by the legality of betting on games.

All this has happened in just a few years. More changes will come. The NBA may allow players to enter the league directly from high school, ending college basketball’s one-and-done era. A gambling scandal could erode trust in the games. Internet streaming could change the finances of a sport built on TV broadcast revenue.

Decades from now, Tar Heel basketball could still be wildly popular, or, with less talent and funding, it could move closer to an Ivy League model.

Few foresaw where major college basketball is today. It’s hard to see where it will be tomorrow. Such uncertainty puts a premium on flexibility and adaptability. In that respect, the Smith Center, no matter how much it’s patched and renovated, would remain a dinosaur.

Coach Smith changed with the game. He would want the arena that bears his name to do the same.

Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-404-7583, or nbarnett@newsobserver.com

This story was originally published March 9, 2026 at 6:36 AM.