Connect with us

Nebraska

Tennessee football to play Georgia Tech in 2026-27, replacing Nebraska series

Published

on

Tennessee football to play Georgia Tech in 2026-27, replacing Nebraska series


Tennessee football will play Georgia Tech in 2026 and 2027 after Nebraska backed out of its series with the Vols.

Both schools announced the new contract on Wednesday. UT also announced a home game against Kennesaw State on Sept. 19, 2026, with a contract that was finalized last fall.

The first game of the Georgia Tech series will be Sept. 12, 2026, in Atlanta. It could be played at Bobby Dodd Stadium, which has a capacity of 51,913. But Georgia Tech could explore moving that game to Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta to take advantage of a 71,000 capacity.

Advertisement

The second game will be Sept. 11, 2027, at Neyland Stadium in Knoxville.

It will be their first meeting since the 2017 season opener, when Tennessee won 42-41 in double-overtime in the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game at Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Georgia Tech’s last trip to Neyland Stadium was 1987, when UT won 29-15.

The Vols own a 25-17-2 record in the all-time series. The programs met all but three years from 1954-87.

Last season, Georgia Tech posted a 7-6 record with a 3-4 mark in the ACC. The Yellow Jackets have gone 18-16 in three seasons under coach Brent Key.

Advertisement

Why Nebraska backed out of Tennessee series

Tennessee had to scramble to find a new opponent after Nebraska backed out of their 2026 and 2027 games, which had been under contract since 2006.

Tennessee athletics director Danny White anticipated having to schedule neutral site games in back-to-back seasons because of Nebraska’s late pullout. But he thanked Georgia Tech athletics director J. Batt for providing the Vols a good alternative on short notice.

“After Nebraska canceled the series, our main focus was to secure another home-and-home matchup with an opponent from a Power Four conference, which seemed improbable at the time,” Danny White said in a school release. “I sincerely appreciate athletic director J. Batt’s creativity in modifying Georgia Tech’s schedule to make this series possible. We look forward to seeing plenty of orange in Atlanta in 2026!”

Nebraska must pay UT $1 million in liquidated damages, or $500,000 per game, plus any expenses incurred in pursuance. It’s a relatively small penalty for a buyout, but that’s because the contract is so old.

Advertisement

Nebraska coach Matt Rhule said the Cornhuskers backed out of the UT series because it had no incentive to play tough nonconference games along with a nine-game conference schedule in the Big Ten.

“Why in the world would a Big Ten team who’s already playing nine conference games, why would you ever play one of those games?” Rhule said on “The Triple Option” podcast with Urban Meyer. “… I love the SEC, I’m not anti-SEC, but there’s some SEC teams last year that only played three away games in another team’s stadium. We’re in a league where some years you have five home Big Ten games, and some years you have five road. You go on the road five times in the Big Ten with no like, Florida-Georgia on a neutral site.”

Tennessee football future nonconference opponents

Tennessee quietly added Kennesaw State to the 2026 schedule last fall.

Coincidentally, former UT running backs coach Jerry Mack was hired as Kennesaw State’s new coach in December after the future game was already on the books.

Advertisement

That means the Vols will open the 2026 season against Furman (Sept. 5), Georgia Tech (Sept. 12) and Kennesaw State (Sept. 19). They haven’t added a fourth nonconference opponent yet because the SEC is considering a nine-game conference schedule in 2026.

Here are UT’s other future nonconference opponents.

2025: Syracuse (in Atlanta); ETSU; UAB; New Mexico State

2026: Furman, Kennesaw State, Georgia Tech (in Atlanta)

2027: Western Michigan, Georgia Tech

Advertisement

2028: West Virginia (in Charlotte, North Carolina)

2029: Washington

2030: at Washington

Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email adam.sparks@knoxnews.com. X, formerly known as Twitter@AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe.

Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox.

Advertisement





Source link

Nebraska

Newly reelected Nebraska Farmers Union president says current farm policy is ‘not working’

Published

on

Newly reelected Nebraska Farmers Union president says current farm policy is ‘not working’


John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, will serve another two years at the helm after members re-elected him this month. He’s seen a lot of change in agriculture since 1990, but some things have stayed relatively the same, such as the price of a bushel of corn. Nebraska Public Media’s Jackie Ourada spoke with Hansen on “All Things Considered” about the state of agriculture, starting with how farmers are feeling about President Trump’s new $12 billion relief package that aims to offset damage done by tariffs.

Hansen: It plays to real mixed reviews for the folks who know how much money they lost in the first place thanks to the tariffs, which is somewhere, the Farm Bureau estimates, between $34 billion and $44 billion. We think $40 billion is a pretty good number. So, if you just lost $40 billion when you are already struggling financially, and you are already having to restructure your your farm loans to try to come up with more equity to replace the cash flow that didn’t work, and you already had done all that … So you lose $40 billion worth of value, and you get $12 billion paid back in some sort of fashion — not yet clear, who gets that. That $11 billion actually goes to the 20 crops, and then an additional $1 billion goes to specialty crops, so we’re certainly not going to be made whole. It’s better than a jab in the eye with a sharp stick, but not as good as being made whole.

Ourada: Farmers are, in Nebraska for the most part, going to, according to some of the economic surveys, benefit quite a lot from government payouts this year. So, I guess it’s difficult for me to hear that you guys have had a lot of calls about farmers being upside down, when the overall picture is that farmers are going to end up with a lot of economic benefits from the payouts from the government.

Hansen: So when you have commodity prices that are this low, and the reason you’re getting additional economic disaster assistance is because if you look at those prices, it’s a train wreck, a complete train wreck. So you’re helping try to offset that through some sort of federal economic assistance. But when you add that amount of assistance with the amount of shortfall that exists in commodity prices that tells you how far out of whack our farm policy and our trade policy is. We’re, unfortunately, in a situation where we’re forced to accept that those additional payments, although all farmers would rather get paid in the marketplace rather than through the mailbox with assistance from their tax-paying cousins and friends and brothers and sisters. And so we need to rethink about what we’re doing when we’re the world’s largest food producing nation, and we have a domestic farm policy and trade policy that puts family farmers and ranchers out of business, and that’s what we’re doing right now. Then it’s time to say, you know, big picture here, this is not working. The lack of stability is really difficult to navigate for somebody who’s on the receiving end of prices.

Advertisement

Ourada: What specifically would you like to see changed?

Hansen: Well, the whole structure. We don’t have really stability. We don’t have dependability. We don’t have any way to begin to cover cost of production. The cost of production that we have, just continues to go up and up and up every year. And yet, commodity prices are not tied to anything that reflects our cost of production. You can’t [say to] General Motors or Ford or or any major manufacturer, ”We want you guys to go out there and incur additional costs of operating every year. But we want you to sell your your end finished product for about the same thing that you know folks were buying it for 3030, years ago or more.” Their cost to the customer has to reflect their cost of production. And in the case of agriculture, farmers are price takers. We’re not price makers. We don’t set the price of what we produce, which is why the private, public partnership between agriculture and Congress needs to be rethought.

Ourada: I have a few friends who farm. They’re around my age, 30, and they are constantly griping, I would say is a good word about dad or grandpa not handing over the farm keys to them. And I’m thinking as you you’ve been with the Farmers Union now since 1990. What does your succession plan look like to the Farmers Union? What does the Farmers Union look like after John Hansen steps down?

Hansen: Well, that’s a great question. It’s one that’s an active discussion. Relative to farmers union, I made it clear at last this last year’s convention held a couple weeks ago, that we’re certainly looking for new folks to pick up the reins if they want to. And there’s a lifetime of opportunity and and in serving agriculture, I happen to think I have the best job in the state. So give me a call.

This interview has been edited for length.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Nebraska

FAFSA participation increases among Nebraska high school seniors

Published

on

FAFSA participation increases among Nebraska high school seniors


New data shows Nebraska high school seniors are completing the FAFSA at higher rates following a new state requirement. Education leaders say the increase could help more students access financial aid and plan for life after graduation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Nebraska

Nebraska Court of Appeals upholds conviction of Grand Island man in sexual assault case

Published

on

Nebraska Court of Appeals upholds conviction of Grand Island man in sexual assault case


The Nebraska Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and sentencing of a Grand Island man charged with sexually assaulting a minor.

Cory Gilmore was sentenced in June to 36 to 48 years in prison on two counts of first-degree sexual assault. Court records said he was initially charged with first-degree sexual assault of a child, first-degree sexual assault and third-degree sexual assault of a child, but pleaded no contest to the two sexual assault counts as part of a plea deal.

According to an arrest affidavit, a report of a possible sexual assault came into the child abuse hotline that Gilmore sexually assaulted a minor girl when he was intoxicated.

A Grand Island police officer later interviewed the girl – who is younger than 19 years old – who said she was sexually assaulted by Gilmore from early 2021 to December 2023.

Advertisement

In his appeal, Gilmore claimed the District Court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to take the deposition of the alleged victim and failing to move to withdraw Gilmore’s plea before sentencing.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals denied Gilmore’s claim of ineffective trial counsel. In his appeal, Gilmore said that at sentencing, he notified his counsel that he wished to withdraw his no-contest plea as he didn’t want to plead guilty or to say he did something he didn’t do.

The Court of Appeals said that at no point did Gilmore inform the District Court that he wished to withdraw his plea and that the District Court asked him if he made his plea “knowingly and voluntarily.”

The Court of Appeals also said in its order that at Gilmore’s sentencing hearing, the District Court looked at Gilmore’s risk to reoffend, his criminal history and the fact that he “showed no remorse for the trauma he has inflicted” in imposing its sentencing. The Court of Appeals said this was appropriate and that his sentencing was not excessive.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending