CFP adds Troy Dannen, Jeff Long to selection committee
May 5 - The College Football Playoff selection committee announced on Monday that Nebraska athletic director Troy Dannen and inaugural selection committee chair and longtime athletics administrator Jeff Long are joining the board.
Dannen is filling the vacancy of Damon Evans, the former Maryland athletic director who is now at SMU in the same position.
Long, who will serve for one year, replaces Steve Weiberg, who resigned for personal reasons.
Dannen, in his second year as the Cornhuskers' AD, served on the NCAA Constitution Committee and the Division I Transformation Committee from 2021-23. He has also been an executive committee member of the Football Oversight Committee and a chair of the NCAA Football Competition Committee. Before taking over at Nebraska, Dannen held the same title at Washington.
Long returns to the CFP selection committee after serving from 2014-18, which included two seasons (2014-15) as the initial chairman. Long worked in college athletics as a coach and administrator for four decades, including as AD at Eastern Kentucky (1998-2001), Pitt (2003-07), Arkansas (2008-17) and Kansas (2018-21).
In March, former Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio and four other new members were named to the 13-member selection committee responsible for ranking the top 25 teams up for consideration for the 12-team field this fall.
Middle Tennessee AD Chris Massaro, former Ole Miss All-America tight end Wesley Walls and former ESPN college football reporter Ivan Masiel are also part of the incoming group. Baylor AD Mack Rhoades will serve as the committee chair, replacing Michigan AD Warde Manuel, who is leaving the committee.
Former Oregon State and Nebraska coach Mike Riley, Virginia AD Carla Williams, former Nevada AD and coach Chris Ault, Arkansas AD Hunter Yurachek, former Arizona State All-America offensive lineman Randall McDaniel and Miami (Ohio) AD David Sayler return from last season.
Former Wake Forest coach Jim Grobe, former Nebraska offensive lineman and Pro Football Hall of Famer Will Shields, former sportswriter Kelly Whiteside and Navy AD Chet Gladchuk, whose terms have expired, will be replaced by the new members, who begin their three-year terms this spring.
--Field Level Media
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
5 days ago
- NBC News
U.S. judge approves $2.8 billion settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. The road to a settlement Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. Roster limits held things up The deal looked ready to go since last fall, but Wilken put a halt to it after listening to a number of players who had lost their spots because of newly imposed roster limits being placed on teams. The limits were part of a trade-off that allowed the schools to offer scholarships to everyone on the roster, instead of only a fraction, as has been the case for decades. Schools started cutting walk-ons in anticipation of the deal being approved. Wilken asked for a solution and, after weeks, the parties decided to let anyone cut from a roster — now termed a 'Designated Student-Athlete' — return to their old school or play for a new one without counting against the new limit. Wilken ultimately agreed, going point-by-point through the objectors' arguments to explain why they didn't hold up. 'The modifications provide Designated Student-Athletes with what they had prior to the roster limits provisions being implemented, which was the opportunity to be on a roster at the discretion of a Division I school,' Wilken wrote Winners and losers The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers, despite Wilken's ruling, figure to be at least some of the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.
The Herald Scotland
6 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
SEC wants College Football Playoff respect? Stop playing cupcakes
When the scheduling debate resurfaced two years ago, some SEC members expressed reluctance to add another conference game without additional compensation from its media partner. ESPN didn't sweeten the pot. The SEC stayed at eight. The latest excuse? Many SEC coaches feel loath to welcome a ninth conference game without first knowing the College Football Playoff format for 2026 and beyond. What's next, no ninth SEC game until there's peace in the Middle East? I'm losing my appetite for this eight-or-nine debate. The number should be 10 - as in, every power-conference team should play a minimum of 10 games against Power Four opponents. MAN WITH PLAN: Lane Kiffin pushes promising 16-team playoff model BIG DECISION: SEC's Greg Sankey can be hero or villain in playoff debate SEC craves more CFP respect while playing cupcake games The SEC routinely insists it should gain preference from the playoff selection committee because of its run of national championship dominance the past 20 years, plus its strength of schedule. I won't argue that the SEC often boasts the strongest top-to-bottom conference. The SEC's pandering to the playoff committee, though, plays weak considering how the conference structures its schedule. Teams only play half the other members of their 16-team conference, and most only play one Power Four non-conference opponent, while supplementing the schedule with a few layup games. In this era of the ever-expanding playoff, it is time for the SEC to curtail its feast of cupcake games. Either stay at eight conference games, or go to nine - so long as it adds up to 10 games against real competition. Power Four teams playing more games against legitimate opponents - and fewer games against directional schools - would provide clarity to the playoff's at-large selection process. Alabama, Florida and South Carolina will play 10 regular-season games against Power Four opponents. The SEC's other teams will play eight or nine games against power foes. By comparison, TCU and Baylor will play a nation-leading 11 games against Power Four competition. Let's not spare the ACC, either. The ACC joins the SEC in playing eight conference games, while their Big Ten and Big 12 peers play nine. Most ACC schools, at least, will play 10 games against power-conference opponents, if you include Notre Dame as a power foe. Alternative to a ninth SEC game? Play another Power Four school Prominent SEC voices continue to trumpet that the committee erred by rejecting three 9-3 teams from the inaugural 12-team playoff, and that the committee does not sufficiently reward the SEC's schedule. "I have a hard time seeing Ole Miss, Alabama, and South Carolina not being in the best teams last year," Georgia coach Kirby Smart said, in reference to 9-3 teams that didn't make the playoff. I maintain the committee flubbed by selecting two-loss SMU, which beat nobody of substance and lost its two games against Top 25 opponents. Mississippi, which smashed Georgia after suffering a resume-staining loss to Kentucky, would have been a better choice. And yet, the SEC's three-loss also-rans could have tempted the committee more if they'd played and won another conference game or at least played and won an additional game against a Power Four opponent, instead of creaming a Championship Subdivision school. We don't know how the committee would view a 9-3 SEC team that played 10 games against Power Four competition. We do know what the committee thought of the SEC's 9-3 teams that played only nine games against power-conference foes. They thought them undeserving of a playoff bid. If Florida, which plays Miami and Florida State, goes 9-3 this season, it likely would have a stronger case for an at-large bid than the SEC's three-loss teams last season. The same is true of South Carolina, which plays Virginia Tech and Clemson for 10 Power Four games. Alabama's games against Wisconsin and Florida State give the Tide 10 games at the big-boy table, too. Those teams stand in exception to the SEC's majority that choose a path of lesser non-conference resistance. The SEC keeps floating the myth that the playoff committee does not respect strength of schedule. That's untrue. Indiana won 11 games last season, but the Hoosiers' soft schedule meant Indiana ranked behind four other at-large playoff qualifiers that won fewer games. Also, the SEC's three-loss teams reached the playoff's doorstep largely because of their strength of schedule. Another marquee victory could help get a three-loss team across the playoff's threshold. I can understand the SEC's reluctance to add a ninth conference game. Another league game would guarantee another loss to half the conference. Those additional losses would hinder playoff pursuits across half the league. The alternative to a ninth SEC game, though, should not be a game against Weasel Tech or Seventh-Grade State. Schedule another opponent from the big leagues. Non-conference scheduling includes the hurdle of needing two to tango. Not every power-conference team wants to play an SEC foe. Nebraska ducked out of its series with Tennessee. Wake Forest canceled on Ole Miss. Still, the SEC cannot relent. SEC coaches would be wise to keep the pedal down on this blue-sky idea of a Big Ten-SEC challenge. The SEC insists it wields the nation's strongest conference and that the committee should honor it as such. That argument holds merit, but the case would become easier to prove if SEC teams scheduled fewer games against Coastal Cupcake and more games against power-conference peers. Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@ and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.
Reuters
30-05-2025
- Reuters
Big 12 commish: Big Ten, SEC share 'great responsibility' with CFP model
May 30 - Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormak doubled down on his support of the 5+11 model for the College Football Playoff on Friday, despite another proposed model that would guarantee his conference two playoff spots. The 5+11 model would give five automatic spots to the highest-ranked conference champions, with 11 at-large berths handed out based on the committee's rankings. Yormark presented this model when the Power 4 commissioners met recently in Charlotte, N.C. "I think there's real momentum for 5+11," Yormark said at the conclusion of the Big 12 spring meetings. "Certainly, the public is voting yes for it, which I think is critically important. Yes, the Big Ten, the SEC are leading the discussions, but with leading those discussions, they have a great responsibility that goes with it, to do what's right for college football and not to do anything that just benefits two conferences. "I have a lot of faith in the process, and I think we'll land in the right place." Last year, when a new six-year CFP deal was announced, the Big Ten and SEC were placed in charge of the playoff's format in 2026 and beyond. Another model, which the ACC and Big 12 oppose, would include four automatic qualifiers for both the SEC and Big Ten, two apiece for the Big 12 and ACC and one for the top Group of 6 team. When asked why he would oppose that model, Yormark said: "In talking to our ADs and coaches, we want to earn it on the field. "The 5+11 might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football, and it's what's fair. We don't want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field ... and I feel very comfortable with that." --Field Level Media
