Transfer pitcher who recorded four strikeouts against Tennessee baseball commits to Vols
Transfer pitcher who recorded four strikeouts against Tennessee baseball commits to Vols
Tennessee baseball received a transfer commitment on Wednesday. East Tennessee State pitcher Brady Frederick announced his commitment to the Vols.
"Go Vols," he announced.
In 2025 as a sophomore, Fredrick (9-2) recorded four saves, 81 strikeouts and a 2.55 ERA in 81.1 innings for the Buccaneers. He earned Southern Conference Pitcher of the Year and First-Team All-Southern Conference honors.
During his first season with East Tennessee State in 2024, Fredrick appeared in seven games, pitching five innings and recording three strikeouts.
He is from Bearden High School (Knoxville, Tennessee). During his high school career with the Bulldogs, he was a two-time all-district player and was the league's Silver Slugger Award winner. Frederick was named to the ETBCA's All-State Team, receiving first-team honors. He also earned a diploma of distinction from Bearden.
East Tennessee State defeated the Vols, 7-6 in 10 innings, on March 18 at Lindsey Nelson Stadium. Frederick pitched 3.2 innings against Tennessee, totaling four strikeouts in the contest.
More: East Tennessee State baseball upsets No. 1 undefeated Vols in 2025
Follow Vols Wire on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
35 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Titans rookie QB Cam Ward talks nonstop, but never misses anything his coach says
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Cam Ward talks so much that Tennessee coach Brian Callahan asked the rookie if he needed to wait until the Titans quarterback stopped before calling a play during practice. The answer? Nope. Ward listens even while talking. The rookie then proves how closely he pays attention by never missing a beat running the next play. 'He enters right into the huddle, and he calls the play and doesn't screw up the play call, and I thought that was actually kind of remarkable,' Callahan said. 'I know I couldn't do that.' Ward said Thursday that it's pretty simple for him. The No. 1 overall pick in April's draft out of Miami is always locked in. The talking comes naturally. 'What's the point of playing something that you love if you can't have fun with it?' Ward said. 'So that's where it comes from. But I mean, I love the game. And so any chance I get, you know, to let somebody know that they can't (mess) with me it really doesn't matter.' Ward wrapped up his first offseason Thursday as the Titans completed their three-day mandatory minicamp in front of family and a batch of food trucks. Rookies work until June 20, then there's a break until July 22 for training camp when the quarterback competition that really isn't resumes. Callahan has done his best to limit the pressure on the rookie by rotating the start of drills among all four quarterbacks on the roster even as Ward got more work during this minicamp for a simple reason: As a rookie the Titans need to give him as much experience as possible. Ward has been doing his part, showing up early working with fellow rookies and staying late. They have watched the Titans' 2024 games, practice tape, review the plays being run in practice later that day. All designed to grow together and be on the same page. It's been noticeable enough that Callahan has talked with the rookie about having grinding months ahead. 'I'm not telling him what to do, I'm just making the point that there's a lot ahead of him that he's not aware of yet when it comes to this, the length and the week-to-week-to-week grind that comes up for these guys,' Callahan said. 'It is a marathon.' Tyler Lockett is a veteran receiver going into his 11th NFL season and has watched Ward since he played at Washington State. Lockett has been impressed with how Ward understands defenses, gets the ball out and understands timing this early. 'I think everybody's able to see exactly what they saw on the film,' Lockett said. Ward has had rookie moments. He was picked off twice Thursday, once by linebacker Cody Barton. He rebounded by throwing a nice pass into tight coverage to Bryce Oliver later in a red zone drill for a touchdown. Quarterbacks coach Bo Hardegree said Ward has worked hard on his footwork and timing and improved on mechanics such as breaking the huddle and recognizing defenses. Ward's hard work is noticeable in other ways too in how he takes coaching points or corrections. 'If he makes a mistake, never make the same mistake twice,' Hardegree said. 'And that's important to him.' Once the rookies start their break, Ward knows he'll be busy studying the playbook and throwing lots of footballs. The quarterback who worked his way from Incarnate Word to Washington State and Miami before becoming the NFL's top draft pick in April knows he'll likely be thinking about football even while showering during the break. Even with his first NFL game still months away, Ward knows his biggest goal for his career: Wins. 'The quarterback position will always be judged off wins,' Ward said. 'So you know I'm just trying to win a lot of games in the NFL in my career. Try to ... help my team win a lot of games.' ___ AP NFL:
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
NCAA Fights Tennessee Hooper's Request to Play a Fifth Season
The NCAA on Monday motioned a federal judge to deny Zakai Zeigler's motion for an injunction in his antitrust lawsuit to keep playing playing Division I basketball as a college graduate who already played four D-1 seasons. The NCAA's motion sends a warning that Zeigler's lawsuit could open the door to numerous players staying on teams for years after they graduate—and taking spots away from incoming freshmen. Zeigler, 22, graduated from the University of Tennessee last month. The 5-foot-9 native of Long Island, N.Y. is a two-time SEC Defensive Player of the Year and set several team records. He played all four seasons at Tennessee, where he also received recognition for academic achievement. Advertisement More from Zeigler would like to play a fifth season as a graduate student, but the NCAA only allows four seasons of intercollegiate competition within a five-year window. Zeigler contends the four-seasons rule violates antitrust law by depriving him and similarly situated players of athletic skill development and NIL opportunities—Zeigler contends he'd earn as much as $4 million in NIL in 2025-26 since he's a well-known and successful college player from a prominent program. He argues there's a less restrictive approach where the NCAA could allow for an additional season if a player completed their undergraduate degree in four years, meaning they did not red shirt and their academic advancement followed the typical path for college students. The NCAA repudiates Zeigler's arguments in a brief authored by Taylor J. Askew and Rakesh Kilaru and colleagues from Holland & Knight and Wilkinson Stekloff. Among the points raised in the NCAA's brief is that Zeigler is not an NBA prospect and thus an additional season is unlikely to make him a candidate for the NBA. 'All publicly available evidence indicates that Plaintiff, respectfully, has a difficult path to the NBA, at this juncture,' the brief states. The brief acknowledges that Zeigler is a terrific college player—he's the all-time leading scorer and assist leader in Tennessee history—but pivots from that point to assert, 'presumably, if [Zeigler] had a viable path to the NBA, given his resume, he would already be a viable prospect. After all, NBA scouts would have seen him play in 138 collegiate contests.' The brief also bluntly mentions, 'there is no proof in the record that Plaintiff was even invited to either the NBA Combine or G-League Combine this year.' Advertisement Similarly, the NCAA highlights how 'there is no evidence that one more season of participation in college basketball is necessary' for Zeigler to play pro hoops. To that point, Zeigler could have tried to join the NBA, G League or a foreign league years ago. He met their minimum age and experience requirements but chose to remain in college and advance toward a degree. Zeigler is also depicted as selfish. As the NCAA spins it, Zeigler is asking a court to make him the first college athlete 'in history' to obtain a judicial decree to play a fifth season 'as a matter of right.' If Zeigler is granted that chance, there would be a loser: a roster spot for a graduating high school senior would otherwise join the Volunteers would be 'reapportioned' to Zeigler. In fact, the NCAA estimates that if college seniors who played four seasons could play another season and chose to do so, somewhere between 20% and 25% of roster spots that would have gone to incoming freshmen would be lost. 'While Plaintiff focuses only on what that means for himself,' the NCAA writes, 'he does so to the detriment of the entering student-athletes who dream of being the next Zakai Zeigler.' In that same spirit, the NCAA defends the four seasons rule as reflecting 'the lifecycle of a collegiate athlete.' Stated differently, NCAA sports are intended to be a career. A college student plays a sport and their college athletic career time ordinarily ends when they graduate. This 'lifecycle,' the NCAA argues, ensures a 'steady stream of opportunities' for graduating high school players to gain a college education and play sports. Advertisement 'College athletics,' the NCAA asserts, 'is a means to a better end for student-athletes—not the end itself.' The NCAA also maintains that Zeigler, like other athletes who have sued the NCAA in recent months to extend their eligibility, has 'misapprehended' the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021) for legal principles that the Court rejected. Although Alston is sometimes linked to NIL, the case had nothing to do with NIL. The NCAA stresses that Alston only addressed compensation rules for athletes' education-related expenses, which are subject to antitrust scrutiny since they involve commercial activity. However, Alston does 'not touch' eligibility rules, which the NCAA asserts fall outside the scope of antitrust scrutiny. As the NCAA tells it, eligibility rules are not about commercial transactions and instead concern who counts as a college athlete—a 'necessary' ingredient 'to create the product of collegiate sports.' Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh's oft-cited concurring opinion, in which lambasted the NCAA and amateurism, explicitly stated that Alston 'involves only a narrow subset of the NCAA's compensation rules.' The NCAA further asserts that relevant precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which governs the Tennessee federal court where Zeigler sued, also instructs that eligibility rules fall outside the scope of antitrust scrutiny. As the NCAA recently cited in an appellate brief in Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia's case against the NCAA regarding eligibility rules, the Sixth Circuit held in Claude Bassett v. NCAA (2008) that enforcement of NCAA rules 'is not within the purview of antitrust law' since those rules are not related to commercial or business activities. Advertisement Another alleged defect in Zeigler's lawsuit is that it has 'no limiting principle,' meaning if a player has a legal right to play a fifth season so they can earn more NIL and further refine athletic skills, the same player could raise the same argument for a sixth season and so on. Universities have no shortage of graduate programs in which an athlete could remain enrolled for, at least in theory, many years. The NCAA also contends that a core premise of Zeigler's lawsuit, which argues that removing experienced college players harms the labor market, is erroneous. While Zeigler suggests NIL deals are most lucrative for seniors, the NCAA says 'non-seniors, on average, have higher NIL valuations than seniors.' The NCAA's expert witness, Cal Berkeley economics professor Matthew Backus, provided a declaration referencing that individual NIL valuations for college basketball players shows that non-seniors' have a higher average NIL valuation than seniors, $1.2 million compared to $1.07 million. The issuance of a preliminary injunction for Zeigler, the NCAA argues, is also misplaced because any harm he suffers from not playing can be quantified. A core element to a preliminary injunction is that denial of one by a judge would likely cause the plaintiff irreparable harm, meaning a harm that money damages can't remedy. The NCAA maintains there are several problems with Zeigler claiming irreparable harm. One is that he 'has known since his first day on campus that he had five years to complete four seasons' and yet waited until after he graduated college to sue. The NCAA believes that Zeigler manufactured an emergency when in reality, he could have sued years ago, giving the court time to review the case's merits. Advertisement Also, the NCAA asserts, any injury Zeigler suffers by a denial to keep playing would be calculable. The NCAA notes that Zeigler didn't enter the transfer portal, 'unlike 100+ other collegiate basketball players who have exhausted their eligibility but are either contemplating suing for more or hoping for an NCAA rule change.' If Zeigler plays another season, 'he will assuredly play for the University of Tennessee,' the NCAA points out. Zeigler submitted a supporting exhibit of data from Spyre Sports Group, which has an NIL collective for Tennessee athletics and estimates Zeigler's NIL value in another season would be worth $2 million to $4 million. That is important, the NCAA maintains, because it shows Zeigler's potential legal injury could be resolved by monetary damages if he eventually wins a trial. U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer will hold a hearing on Zeigler's motion for a preliminary injunction on Friday at 1:45 pm local time in a Knoxville (Tenn.) federal courthouse. Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tennessee Star Zakai Zeigler Has NCAA Fifth-Year Bid Blocked
A federal judge on Thursday denied former University of Tennessee basketball star Zakai Zeigler a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the two-time SEC Defensive Player of the Year to play a fifth season as a graduate student in 2025-26. U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer reasoned that while the NCAA's eligibility rule allowing four seasons of intercollegiate competition within a five-year window is subject to antitrust scrutiny—the NCAA insisted it is not—Zeigler failed to show the rule is sufficiently problematic under antitrust law. Advertisement More from The main problem for Zeigler, as Crytzer saw it, is that the NCAA 'does not control who receives NIL compensation' and thus Zeigler losing out on—he claims—up to $4 million in NIL deals does not show the NCAA is legally responsible. As the judge explained, NIL deals are between athletes and third parties, while the NCAA does not 'enjoy the power to set [NIL] wages' in the labor market for college athletes. Relatedly, Crytzer wrote, is that his exclusion from college basketball is not all that meaningful from an antitrust law perspective. 'Plaintiff has not shown that defendant's limit on the labor side of the market—replacing one Division I basketball player with another—produces substantial anticompetitive effects.' Advertisement The judge suggested that Zeigler's case is more about the wisdom of rules that limit how long college athletes can play than the law about that topic. 'This Court is a court of law, not policy,' Crytzer wrote. 'What the NCAA should do as a policy matter to benefit student athletes is beyond the reach' of the court. Crytzer identified other problems in Zeigler's motion for an injunction. One factor in whether to grant an injunction is if the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Irreparable harm normally means a harm that monetary damages can't later remedy. In the sports context, irreparable harm is sometimes argued in the context of an athlete excluded from playing in that the athlete will lose the chance to play in games that will never be played again and lose the opportunity to hone their skills. Zeigler failed to offer a plausible explanation for how he would suffer irreparable harm, the judge concluded. Advertisement 'Plaintiff's asserted harms, including loss of substantial NIL opportunities and access to the NIL market,' Crytzer wrote, 'are more monetary in nature, and a future money damages award might adequately redress them.' Crytzer also worried that letting Zeigler play could pose unintended consequences for other athletes. If Zeigler could play a fifth season as a grad student, other players in his position could seek the same remedy, which would mean some incoming freshmen or incoming transfers lose their roster spots. 'Given the fixed number of roster spots available for each Division I basketball team,' the judge wrote, 'an injunction would run the risk of harming (1) currently enrolled Division I basketball players who have already committed to a member institution and (2) current high school seniors who might have their college recruitment disrupted.' Crytzer's ruling is a win for the NCAA in terms of outcome. Had Zeigler won, numerous college seniors could seek to play a fifth season as a grad student. The NCAA also warned that there is 'no limiting principle' in that a player could seek a sixth or additional seasons as a grad student, since Zeigler's argument—that denial of NIL opportunities justifies an antitrust harm—could conceivably apply for many years. Advertisement But the judge didn't endorse the NCAA's preferred rationale. The NCAA maintains that eligibility rules are non-commercial in nature since they concern a more academic or educational consideration: when a student is eligible to play sport. Antitrust law governs commercial matters, and thus the NCAA contends eligibility rules should fall outside antitrust scrutiny. Crytzer disagreed. She wrote that in the modern college sports world, college athletes 'may receive compensation in exchange for their athletic services.' She added that 'the nature and amount of that compensation' depends in part on whether a player is eligible to play. Crytzer referenced U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granting final approval of the 10-year settlement between the NCAA, power conferences and current and former Division I athletes represented by the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations. The settlement will allow colleges to directly share revenue with athletes. To be clear, Crytzer clarified House is outside the scope of Zeigler v. NCAA and had no impact on her ruling. But Crytzer's reference to the House settlement is a reminder that college athletes in power conference programs are morphing into a status that has some similarity to pro athletes, albeit with academic obligations. And it means the NCAA can anticipate other antitrust lawsuits over rules. The association has been besieged with antitrust lawsuits brought by athletes in their 20s who don't want to leave college sports. Some are like Zeigler in that they're college stars who can command millions in NIL (and perhaps soon in revenue-sharing) and whose schools would love to keep them around long-term as grad students who aren't quite good enough (or in the case of the 5-foot-9 Zeigler, tall enough) for the NBA or NFL. Their chance to make money is in college sports, and they don't want to leave. Advertisement Thursday's ruling doesn't end Zeigler's case. He can continue to litigate and hope to eventually win a trial where he would be awarded damages. Zeigler can also appeal Crytzer's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Absent intervention by the appellate court, Zeigler will remain a former, rather than active, Vols player. Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
