OU football GM Jim Nagy on Nico Iamaleava situation: 'This can't happen here'
NORMAN — OU football general manager Jim Nagy spoke candidly when he joined the Sooners' in-stadium radio broadcast during Saturday's Crimson Combine.
"There is a rather big story going on in Knoxville," analyst Gabe Ikard said, referring to Tennessee quarterback Nico Iamaleava's intention to enter the transfer portal following public NIL disputes. "I don't really want to ask you about that specifically, but what is your strategy, your staff's strategy, the coaches. How do we avoid a situation like that?"
Advertisement
ESPN reported Saturday morning the Volunteers intend to move on from Iamaleava in the wake of his decision to not attend practice Friday amid NIL contract discussions with the school. Yahoo Sports also reported Iamaleava has submitted his paperwork to enter the transfer portal.
Nagy said he was in a group text message thread with OU's coaches Saturday morning discussing a situation "at another school."
"This can't happen here," Nagy told the coaches. "There are red flags along the way that probably could've pointed to this happening. ... That's a doomsday scenario."
Nagy emphasized the importance of getting to know players and families during the recruiting process.
Advertisement
"I think you really need to get to know these players and their families through the recruiting process," Nagy said. "Knowing the player is one thing. We can all watch the tape and identify that. But when we have families on campus and we have players on campus, that's really work to get to know them."
More: OU football defensive back Mykel Patterson-McDonald will enter transfer portal
Colton Sulley covers college sports for The Oklahoman. Have a story idea for Colton? He can be reached at csulley@oklahoman.com or on X/Twitter at @colton_sulley. Support Colton's work and that of other Oklahoman journalists by purchasing a digital subscription today at subscribe.oklahoman.com.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: OU football GM Jim Nagy on Nico Iamaleava: 'This can't happen here'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeal alleging House v. NCAA settlement ‘ignored' Title IX will pause back pay plans
Eight female athletes filed an appeal of the House v. NCAA settlement Wednesday in a California federal court, arguing that the landmark agreement violates Title IX. The appeal only addresses the back damages portion of the settlement, not the portion that establishes the system of direct revenue sharing with athletes. The watershed settlement, approved late Friday night by federal judge Claudia Wilken, has been years in the making. Last October Wilken granted the settlement preliminary approval, then waded through hundreds of objections filed over the ensuing eight months. Many of those objections were related to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education and requires schools to offer equitable opportunities to women, including in sports. Advertisement Wilken was unmoved by those objections, repeatedly saying the antitrust case had nothing to do with Title IX. But she did leave the door open for future lawsuits based on Title IX targeting how future payments from schools to athletes will be made. The appeal will not impact revenue sharing — slated to start July 1 for all schools that have opted in — but will pause the back-pay damages portion of the settlement. John Clune, the attorney who represents the eight women filing the appeal, said he also filed an objection during the settlement adjudication process but that nothing came of it. 'We felt like we were standing on the table waving our arms that somebody had to address this issue, but none of the parties involved wanted to address it, and the courts didn't want to address it,' Clune told , saying Title IX was 'deliberately ignored.' Advertisement 'This was the only option.' The NCAA and lawyers for the plaintiffs in House v. NCAA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The eight women represented in the lawsuit are Kacie Breeding Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold from the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson from the University of Virginia. The appeal argues that the $2.8 billion in damages set to be distributed to former athletes who couldn't earn NIL (name, image and likeness) money before 2021 violates Title IX because female athletes will be paid less than football and men's basketball players. Advertisement Clune said the settlement suggests 'schools would have paid male athletes over 90 percent of their revenue over the past six years as though Title IX didn't apply. If Nike wants to do that, that is their choice. If the school, or a conference acting on the school's behalf tries to do that, they are violating the law.' 'They can either pay the athletes proportionately, or they can return all of their federal funds,' he said. 'But they can't do both.' Clune said his clients 'support a settlement of the case, just not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of damages is based on an error to the tune of $1.1 billion. Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error … Congress has expressly rejected efforts to prioritize benefits to football and basketball from Title IX's requirements.' Clune said the Title IX implications for future payouts are still to be determined. In the meantime, the appeal process is a 'slow burn,' with a briefing schedule and oral arguments likely to be set in the next nine to 12 months. Advertisement 'It wouldn't surprise me if we see lawsuits against schools for those (rev share) payouts at some point,' he said. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. College Football, Men's College Basketball, Sports Business, Women's College Basketball, College Sports 2025 The Athletic Media Company
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Zakai Zeigler lawyers: New Tennessee law prevents NCAA from keeping Vols player off court
Attorneys for former Tennessee basketball player Zakai Zeigler are trying to utilize a new state law curtailing the NCAA's authority to get him an additional year of eligibility. It's the latest twist in Zeigler's federal lawsuit against the NCAA, which challenges the so-called "Four Seasons" rule. The NCAA allows athletes to play four seasons during a five-year period, which can include a redshirt year. Advertisement Zeigler ran out of NCAA eligibility by playing the past four seasons for UT basketball and not taking a redshirt. He wants to play a fifth season and earn millions of dollars in NIL pay. His attorneys say the NCAA does not have the authority in the state of Tennessee to stop him. The new Tennessee law, Senate Bill 536, allows Tennessee universities and athletes to opt out of NCAA rules if they appear to violate antitrust law. The initial purpose was to shift liability toward the NCAA and conferences and away from the schools in anticipated antitrust lawsuits by athletes unhappy with new player-pay rules in college sports. But broad language in the law – which has not been litigated in any court – strips the NCAA of its power if the association prohibits a Tennessee athlete from earning money. Zeigler's attorneys are seizing on that portion to push for a preliminary injunction that would grant him a fifth year of eligibility. '(The new Tennessee law is) unambiguously clear: Any NCAA action that impacts an athlete's ability to earn NIL compensation or his or her eligibility, like the Four-Seasons Rule, is illegal in Tennessee,' Zeigler's attorneys argued in a brief filed to the Eastern District of Tennessee federal court on June 7. NCAA says Tennessee law is irrelevant in Zakai Zeigler case The NCAA countered, accusing Zeigler of exploiting a law that doesn't apply to his case. Advertisement '(Zeigler's brief) continues his effort to dismantle the NCAA membership's longstanding eligibility rules by any means necessary — this time through a tortured reading of an irrelevant law,' NCAA attorneys wrote in a brief to the court on June 8. 'Common sense dictates that the new Tennessee statute has nothing to do with this case.' The law appeared to be in response to Tennessee v. NCAA, a separate federal lawsuit that challenged the NCAA's rules that prohibited schools from facilitating NIL negotiations with players and recruits. Tennessee and the NCAA reached a settlement in that case in January, the same month that Senate Bill 536 was introduced in the legislature. The new law was signed by Gov. Bill Lee on May 1, and it sparked a fight between UT and power conferences about whether the school had to follow new player-pay rules set forth in the House settlement. Advertisement However, a provision in the new law said the NCAA shall not 'interfere with, prohibit, restrict, or otherwise adversely affect an intercollegiate athlete's ability to earn compensation … and shall not otherwise impact an intercollegiate athlete's eligibility or full participation in intercollegiate athletic events.' Zeigler has used that language in his fight against the NCAA. Federal Judge Katherine Crytzer could invalidate the state law altogether if she wants. Should Tennessee or NCAA decide if Zeigler can keep playing? Zeigler has a guaranteed spot on Tennessee's 2025-26 basketball roster if Crytzer allows it. The latest hearing was held in Knoxville on June 6, and both sides are jockeying for a stronger position. Advertisement Zeigler's attorney, Alex Little, told the judge that Zeigler intends to play for the Vols and was told he had a spot on the team. But Little also said the NCAA wouldn't be able to restrict Zeigler's entrance into the transfer portal, presumably meaning if his injunction request was approved, Zeigler would have the option to play at another school, not just UT. The NCAA argues that its eligibility rules are clear, and Zeigler cannot exceed them. But Zeigler's attorneys say that the law allows UT to determine who plays on its teams, not the NCAA. '(The NCAA) argued that the phrase 'can . . . participate' means that Mr. Zeigler must be eligible to participate under its own eligibility rules,' Zeigler's attorneys argued in a brief. 'But this argument assumes its own premise: that the NCAA — rather than the institution — determines who gets to 'participate in an athletic program (at an institution).'' Mar 22, 2025; Lexington, KY, USA; Tennessee Volunteers guard Zakai Zeigler (5) brings the ball up court during the first half against the UCLA Bruins in the second round of the NCAA Tournament at Rupp Arena. Mandatory Credit: Aaron Doster-Imagn Images NCAA says UT can't support Zeigler and agree to NCAA rules The NCAA sees a contradiction in UT's apparent support of Zeigler and its acceptance of NCAA eligibility rules. After all, member schools like UT make up the NCAA and adopt its rules. Advertisement The House settlement, which resolved three federal antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and four power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC), could strengthen the NCAA's position in the Zeigler case. The settlement was approved on June 6, just hours after the conclusion of Zeigler's hearing, and reinforced eligibility rules. The House settlement permitted the NCAA and conferences to cap the number of years an athlete is eligible to receive payments at four years plus a redshirt year, providing that all four of those seasons must be played within a consecutive five-year period. The SEC, which includes UT as a member, agreed to that settlement. 'The State's flagship institution (which happens to be the school Plaintiff attended) is a member of an athletic conference that has agreed to a settlement that expressly affirms the NCAA's Four-Seasons Rule,' NCAA attorneys argued in a brief. 'That same institution, the University of Tennessee, obtained valuable legal releases pursuant to that settlement and unsurprisingly has repeatedly endorsed it. Advertisement 'It is accordingly hard to imagine the Tennessee legislature passing a law so obviously at odds with the University of Tennessee's legal position and interests.' Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email X, formerly known as Twitter@AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox. This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Zakai Zeigler lawyers: Tennessee law supersedes NCAA eligibility rule
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Appeal to NCAA settlement to challenge how $2 billion in damages will be paid to athletes
Appeal to NCAA settlement to challenge how $2 billion in damages will be paid to athletes Show Caption Hide Caption Which NCAA baseball teams could blow up the bracket The Montgomery Advertiser's Adam Cole and The Southwest Times Record's Jackson Fuller break down who could wreck the tournament bracket. Lawyers for a group of eight female athletes who objected to the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences filed notice on Wednesday, June 11, that they will be appealing a federal district judge's decision to grant final approval to the agreement. Attorney John Clune told USA TODAY Sports this effort with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will not challenge the going-forward aspects of the settlement, which include schools being allowed to pay athletes directly for the use of their name, image and likeness, beginning July 1. It will challenge, under federal gender-equity law, the legality of how more than $2 billion in damages is set to be distributed to current and former athletes who were unable to participate in NIL contracts. About 90% of that money is set to be paid to football and men's basketball players because the damages model created by the plaintiffs' economic experts is based on their assessment that the market for college athletes' NIL compensation historically has been driven by revenues connected to those two sports. In a filing in January, these objectors' lawyers argued that, in the absence of rules preventing schools from making NIL compensation to athletes, those payments 'would have been required to be made proportionately to male and female athletes due to Title IX.' The appeal could significantly delay the start of payments of damages money to tens of thousands of athletes and to the plaintiffs' lawyers, who have requested that they be awarded hundreds of millions of dollars from the total settlement pool of $2.8 billion. All of these payments are set to occur over a 10-year period. As the settlement was approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, in the event of an appeal of this nature, the NCAA and the conferences would begin making damages payments, but the money would be held in escrow — not paid to athletes or lawyers — until appeals are completed. In a statement June 11, lawyers Clune and Ashly Hare said: 'We support a settlement of the case, just not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of damages is based on an error to the tune of $1.1 billion dollars. Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women's sports. 'This is a football and basketball damages settlement. Period. Title IX was created to reign in efforts such as these. Congress has expressly rejected efforts to exempt revenue-generating sports like football and basketball from Title IX's anti-discrimination mandate.'
