On Friday, University of Tennessee, Knoxville athletic director Danny White responded to ESPN’s Pete Thamel’s report on X regarding the cancellation of the Volunteers’ scheduled games in 2026 and 2027 against the Nebraska Cornhuskers, stating it was Nebraska’s decision, and expressing that the Volunteers were “very disappointed” by the outcome.
To be fair to Thamel’s report, that X post also noted, “A reason behind the decision was Nebraska seeking eight home games in 2027 when they anticipated decreased stadium capacity due to renovations.” Thus, White can undoubtedly provide a “clarification” that it wasn’t “Tennessee and Nebraska” who canceled the series, but the original post did imply that Nebraska was responsible for it.
However, beyond just a notable reporting correction, this is significant because White openly stated that Tennessee opposed this change while Nebraska supported it, and he opted for X to express that. (Importantly, this occurred after White and Nebraska AD Troy Dannen were likely present in the same rooms this week during meetings of the SEC and Big Ten ADs in New Orleans regarding College Football Playoff qualification and expansion.)
White also criticized this further to Grant Ramey of On3’s Volquest, stating that Nebraska is paying only $500,000 per game ($1 million total) to Tennessee to exit the contract, partly due to the deal being initially signed in 2006.
“The effects of the buyout must be significantly more severe,” White stated. “This contract is really old.” It was delayed several times. Had it been delayed while I was present, I would have requested a higher buyout to postpone it.
“I’m not sure about the history regarding whether we asked to postpone it or if it was Nebraska that did.” The buyout conditions mirror a contract that is two decades old. They are not sufficiently steep to deter this type of decision-making from our adversary.
Historically, Tennessee has sought to delay the series, as they attempted to postpone it in 2013 while planning to face Virginia Tech at Bristol Motor Speedway in 2016. Indeed, White had no part in that move; at that time, he was the AD at Buffalo. However, this was modified on their end earlier, and their school has previously terminated other agreements too (though not typically within such a brief timeframe, which seems to be White’s main concern in this case).
On the Nebraska side, Dannen informed the press on the record that the reasoning was to require additional home games due to the possibly restricted stadium capacity amid renovations. This indicates that the Cornhuskers will host Bowling Green and Miami (Ohio) during 2026 and 2027 rather than visiting Knoxville in 2026 and welcoming the Vols in 2027. Nonetheless, some doubted whether this was a tactic to face weaker rivals to enhance the team’s record, particularly after Indiana reached the College Football Playoff amidst a scrutinized schedule. Whether or not that was an intended consideration, the Nebraska schedule appears more manageable in 2026 and 2027.
An intriguing aspect of this situation is that White’s X announcement led to extensive lobbying by individuals present to compete against their school in 2026. A significant portion of that feedback originated from fans and the media, though South Florida head coach Alex Golesh also expressed his thoughts:
Regarding the actual scheduling, there may still be additional details to resolve in this area. The SEC is contemplating increasing to nine conference games (though this probably won’t commence until 2027 at the earliest), matching the number the Big Ten has hosted since 2016. This might result in SEC schools participating in a 10th game with a Big Ten rival through a cross-conference scheduling deal. Perhaps the Cornhuskers and Volunteers will compete against each other in the near future.
At the moment, it’s quite remarkable to witness White criticizing Nebraska in this manner. It’s fascinating to observe him rectifying Thamel’s article. It aligns with that recent sequence of possibly not-so-reciprocal actions. But hey, at least this is an individual who is not only contesting a report but also sharing their perspective on the record. It would be great to witness that in different circumstances.
