Stanford WNBA 2026 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford WNBA 2026 (/thread-26176.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford WNBA 2026 (/thread-26176.html)
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - M T - 08-09-2026
I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
"Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.
As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2. As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.
I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face. One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do. The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.
So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.
What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).
Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted. I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife.
Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official. This would have made her sit out a game. AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact. Here is video.
News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter. If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game. Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - 2006alum - 08-09-2026
(08-09-2026, 02:58 AM)M T Wrote: I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
"Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.
As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2. As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.
I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face. One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do. The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.
So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.
What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).
Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted. I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife.
Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official. This would have made her sit out a game. AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact. Here is video.
News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter. If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game. Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.
I say this as a big fan of the W and a Valkyries founding season ticket holder - the less time spent on stuff like this, the better. Cunningham has brought a brobdingnagian and unwanted distraction onto the league - there are no trans players in the W so why there are anti trans rallies outside W games makes no sense other than as trying to force the culture war onto the W. Nai's post seems to be seeking the same imposition of politics where it doesn't belong.
I say: ignore it all, because none of it has anything to do with basketball. It was defo a flagrant 2 and no one seems to think otherwise. Leave it at that and on to the next game. Don't give oxygen to fire you don't want fanned.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - Card10Fan - 08-09-2026
DiJonai is a loose cannon. How did she survive 4 years at Stanford under Tara?
WNBA players complain about social media vitriol and threats online but then post nonsense like this to fuel the flame. It was a flagrant 2 and had nothing to do with white privilege. My advice to her is to move on and stop trying to get unnecessary attention.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - BobK - 08-09-2026
(08-09-2026, 08:12 AM)Card10Fan Wrote: DiJonai is a loose cannon. How did she survive 4 years at Stanford under Tara?
WNBA players complain about social media vitriol and threats online but then post nonsense like this to fuel the flame. It was a flagrant 2 and had nothing to do with white privilege. My advice to her is to move on and stop trying to get unnecessary attention.
She didn’t survive 4 years she opted out of her sr season so she could transfer.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - crackpot - 08-09-2026
(08-09-2026, 02:58 AM)M T Wrote: I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
"Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.
As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2. As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.
I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face. One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do. The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.
So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.
What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).
Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted. I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife.
Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official. This would have made her sit out a game. AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact. Here is video.
News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter. If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game. Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.
The flagrant 2 (under this year's rules) was warranted. However, Cunningham not getting a flagrant 1 is ridiculous. I assumed this is what Carrington meant. I was watching the game, and Cunningham strutting around afterward like she'd just won defeated her fiercest enemy was quite disturbing. I did laugh when I found out that she had the worst ever +/- ever recorded in a WNBA game. Carrington, OTOH, came in and provided quite a spark for the Sky for the mere 3 minutes or so she was in.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - Hieronymus - 08-09-2026
Obvious flagrant 2, but this season suspension talk is just silly. Move along folks. Personally, I have no issues with Cunningham not getting a technical in the aftermath, but reasonable minds can disagree. I assume the white privilege comment was on the aftermath and not the ejection but it’s hard to tell.
The absurd call was the Clark technical for stumbling into the official that took all of 2 hours to get rescinded by the league. My guess is the WNBA is slightly happy the Carrington foul buried the Clark technical this news cycle. WNBA officiating remains a tragicomedy.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - BillBradley - 08-10-2026
(08-09-2026, 06:11 AM)2006alum Wrote:That's good advice across the board. Wish we could break the cycle of 1. Ridiculous post 2. Major media sites pick it up and fuel the "story" 3. Other sites or people who need traffic and attention fire off more ridiculous commentary, and the ecosystem continues to get fed. Most of the country doesn't understand the media circus in the pay-for-click world, so they take it as actual journalism worth paying attention to. For all we know, Cunningham and Carrington shared a beer that night and counted the additional followers they picked up. Makes me sick.(08-09-2026, 02:58 AM)M T Wrote: I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
"Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.
As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2. As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.
I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face. One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do. The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.
So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.
What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).
Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted. I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife.
Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official. This would have made her sit out a game. AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact. Here is video.
News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter. If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game. Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.
I say this as a big fan of the W and a Valkyries founding season ticket holder - the less time spent on stuff like this, the better. Cunningham has brought a brobdingnagian and unwanted distraction onto the league - there are no trans players in the W so why there are anti trans rallies outside W games makes no sense other than as trying to force the culture war onto the W. Nai's post seems to be seeking the same imposition of politics where it doesn't belong.
I say: ignore it all, because none of it has anything to do with basketball. It was defo a flagrant 2 and no one seems to think otherwise. Leave it at that and on to the next game. Don't give oxygen to fire you don't want fanned.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - Jskass - 08-10-2026
(08-10-2026, 10:31 AM)BillBradley Wrote:just saw that she had replied to some criticism, and wish she'd just let it go. Loved loved watching her play at Stanford, tons of enthusiasm and hustle - sometimes a little out of control but she was our high energy player (who yes was very strong and sometimes ran into or over players but no harm intended)!(08-09-2026, 06:11 AM)2006alum Wrote:That's good advice across the board. Wish we could break the cycle of 1. Ridiculous post 2. Major media sites pick it up and fuel the "story" 3. Other sites or people who need traffic and attention fire off more ridiculous commentary, and the ecosystem continues to get fed. Most of the country doesn't understand the media circus in the pay-for-click world, so they take it as actual journalism worth paying attention to. For all we know, Cunningham and Carrington shared a beer that night and counted the additional followers they picked up. Makes me sick.(08-09-2026, 02:58 AM)M T Wrote: I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
"Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.
As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2. As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.
I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face. One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do. The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.
So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.
What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).
Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted. I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife.
Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official. This would have made her sit out a game. AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact. Here is video.
News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter. If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game. Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.
I say this as a big fan of the W and a Valkyries founding season ticket holder - the less time spent on stuff like this, the better. Cunningham has brought a brobdingnagian and unwanted distraction onto the league - there are no trans players in the W so why there are anti trans rallies outside W games makes no sense other than as trying to force the culture war onto the W. Nai's post seems to be seeking the same imposition of politics where it doesn't belong.
I say: ignore it all, because none of it has anything to do with basketball. It was defo a flagrant 2 and no one seems to think otherwise. Leave it at that and on to the next game. Don't give oxygen to fire you don't want fanned.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - Mick - 08-10-2026
(08-09-2026, 12:31 PM)crackpot Wrote:(08-09-2026, 02:58 AM)M T Wrote: I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
"Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.
As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2. As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.
I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face. One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do. The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.
So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.
What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).
Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted. I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife.
Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official. This would have made her sit out a game. AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact. Here is video.
News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter. If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game. Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.
The flagrant 2 (under this year's rules) was warranted. However, Cunningham not getting a flagrant 1 is ridiculous. I assumed this is what Carrington meant. I was watching the game, and Cunningham strutting around afterward like she'd just won defeated her fiercest enemy was quite disturbing. I did laugh when I found out that she had the worst ever +/- ever recorded in a WNBA game. Carrington, OTOH, came in and provided quite a spark for the Sky for the mere 3 minutes or so she was in.
I'm not a WNBA fan, so I don't know the rules. Is strutting considered a Flagrant 1, or can it sometimes be a Flagrant 2? Or just a normal technical foul? Or no foul at all? Is strutting common? Is it discouraged? Do coaches strut? Just curious.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - M T - 08-10-2026
(08-10-2026, 05:31 PM)Jskass Wrote: just saw that she had replied to some criticism, and wish she'd just let it go. Loved loved watching her play at Stanford, tons of enthusiasm and hustle - sometimes a little out of control but she was our high energy player (who yes was very strong and sometimes ran into or over players but no harm intended)!
This was her reply
Quote:I’ve never once claimed that the assessment of the foul was white privilege (that was your assumption). Try exercising your critical thinking skills, I know you studied psych. Furthermore, I’m the LAST thing from ignorant or asinine when it comes to speaking on “white privilege”, do ya research on that one. I actually went to school, one of the top universities might I add, to educate myself on this exact subject. I would never use that term as a rhetorical weapon knowing the historical and social weight it holds without having the proper evidence to substantiate it.
I presume she will now need to provide her stated "proper evidence" for whatever she alleges she meant by her two word post. I don't know if she was being careful with her wording so as to make it unclear whether the "assessment of the foul" was the initial call or the upgrade. But, for someone who claims to be smart, she must have known what her post would appear to mean. She can't be talking about, say, the price of white tea in China, as she tagged the post with the opposing team.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - 82lsju - 08-10-2026
(08-10-2026, 06:45 PM)Mick Wrote:(08-09-2026, 12:31 PM)crackpot Wrote:(08-09-2026, 02:58 AM)M T Wrote: I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
"Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.
As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2. As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.
I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face. One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do. The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.
So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.
What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).
Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted. I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife.
Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official. This would have made her sit out a game. AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact. Here is video.
News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter. If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game. Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.
The flagrant 2 (under this year's rules) was warranted. However, Cunningham not getting a flagrant 1 is ridiculous. I assumed this is what Carrington meant. I was watching the game, and Cunningham strutting around afterward like she'd just won defeated her fiercest enemy was quite disturbing. I did laugh when I found out that she had the worst ever +/- ever recorded in a WNBA game. Carrington, OTOH, came in and provided quite a spark for the Sky for the mere 3 minutes or so she was in.
I'm not a WNBA fan, so I don't know the rules. Is strutting considered a Flagrant 1, or can it sometimes be a Flagrant 2? Or just a normal technical foul? Or no foul at all? Is strutting common? Is it discouraged? Do coaches strut? Just curious.
the info below seems to leave some room for "discretion" on the part of the officials....
Quote:B. FOULS: FLAGRANT—UNSPORTSMANLIKE To be unsportsmanlike is to act in a manner unbecoming to the image of professional basketball. It consists of acts of deceit, disrespect of officials, and profanity. The penalty for such action is a technical foul. Repeated acts shall result in expulsion from the game and potentially a fine.
A flagrant foul—penalty (1) is unnecessary contact committed by a player against an opponent.
A flagrant foul—penalty (2) is unnecessary and excessive contact committed by a player against an opponent. It is an unsportsmanlike act and the offender is ejected following confirmation by instant replay review.
https://cdn.wnba.com/sites/4/2026/05/2026-WNBA-Official-Rule-Book.pdf
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - M T - 08-11-2026
Quote:Rule 12 A Section V
a. An official may assess a technical foul without prior warning at any time. A
technical foul(s) may be assessed to any player on the court or anyone seated on the bench
for conduct which, in the opinion of an official, is detrimental to the game. The technical
foul must be charged to an individual. A technical foul cannot be assessed for physical
contact when the ball becomes alive.
EXCEPTION: Fighting fouls and/or taunting with physical contact.
d. A technical foul shall be assessed for unsportsmanlike tactics such as:
(1) Disrespectfully addressing an official
(2) Physically contacting an official
(3) Overt actions indicating resentment to a call
(4) Use of profanity
(5) A coach entering the court without the permission of an official
(6) A deliberately thrown elbow or any attempted physical act with no contact
involved
(7) Taunting
e. Cursing or blaspheming an official shall not be considered the only cause for
imposing technical fouls. Running tirades, continuous criticism, or griping may be
sufficient cause to assess a technical. Excessive misconduct shall result in ejection from
the game.
I don't watch much WNBA, but if it is anything like NCAA, the refs would rather have their wisdom teeth pulled rather than assess a coach a technical for entering the court without permission.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - 2006alum - 08-11-2026
It seems to me if Cunningham warranted anything it was a tech not a flagrant. But again, this was a basketball play between a player who played 8 minutes off the bench and a player with the worst +/- in a win in the 30-year history of the league. This would not be notable if both players weren't active social media flamethrowers and we lived in a culture that can't help but always bite on the cultural wars bait. Meanwhile, Kayla McBuckets hits 10 treys in 3 quarters for the all-time W single-game record and there's barely a whisper outside of genuine fan circles.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - OCcardinal - 08-11-2026
(08-09-2026, 08:34 AM)BobK Wrote: She didn’t survive 4 years she opted out of her sr season so she could transfer.Carrington played at Stanford for four years and graduated (with two degrees). Because a knee injury limited her senior season to just five games, she was granted a medical hardship waiver. She attended Baylor as a graduate student, where she competed using that additional year of eligibility.
And it's never been clear to me that Carrington had a consistently clear "option" to return for the 2020-21 Season (for what ultimately became a national championship season for Stanford WBB). I recall that Wilson and Carrington both potentially had fifth-year eligibility and that Stanford initially appeared to have only one available scholarship. Wilson received approval for her fifth year and it was announced she was returning to Stanford. That would have initially left no scholarship available for Carrington. However, Moschkau then announced she was leaving for Wisconsin. That would have created another opening, but I don't know how far along Carrington had been at that point in securing other plans. Ultimately Stanford played with only 14 on the roster that season. Perhaps there are others on this board with more insight, but I wouldn't summarize that whole situation as Carrington opting out of her senior season so she could transfer.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - 2006alum - 08-11-2026
(08-11-2026, 10:30 AM)OCcardinal Wrote:That is my precise recollection - Wilson's waiver was granted earlier than Carrington's, the spot went to her, and by the time Moschkau's spot opened up for Carrington she was already in the portal and pursuing Baylor.(08-09-2026, 08:34 AM)BobK Wrote: She didn’t survive 4 years she opted out of her sr season so she could transfer.Carrington played at Stanford for four years and graduated (with two degrees). Because a knee injury limited her senior season to just five games, she was granted a medical hardship waiver. She attended Baylor as a graduate student, where she competed using that additional year of eligibility.
And it's never been clear to me that Carrington had a consistently clear "option" to return for the 2020-21 Season (for what ultimately became a national championship season for Stanford WBB). I recall that Wilson and Carrington both potentially had fifth-year eligibility and that Stanford initially appeared to have only one available scholarship. Wilson received approval for her fifth year and it was announced she was returning to Stanford. That would have initially left no scholarship available for Carrington. However, Moschkau then announced she was leaving for Wisconsin. That would have created another opening, but I don't know how far along Carrington had been at that point in securing other plans. Ultimately Stanford played with only 14 on the roster that season. Perhaps there are others on this board with more insight, but I wouldn't summarize that whole situation as Carrington opting out of her senior season so she could transfer.
Notwithstanding her questionable choices when it comes to flagrant fouls and flagrant x posts, it's always bothered me that Stanford doesn't count Carrington as an alum in their WNBA roundups, since unlike others she used all of her available eligibility at Stanford, graduated in four years, and grad transferred only because we didn't (initially) have a spot for her. Not sure what she should have done differently given those circumstances and (again, last week notwithstanding), not sure why we'd disclaim an alum who's had a pretty successful W career.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - Jskass - 08-12-2026
(08-11-2026, 01:49 PM)2006alum Wrote:100%.(08-11-2026, 10:30 AM)OCcardinal Wrote:That is my precise recollection - Wilson's waiver was granted earlier than Carrington's, the spot went to her, and by the time Moschkau's spot opened up for Carrington she was already in the portal and pursuing Baylor.(08-09-2026, 08:34 AM)BobK Wrote: She didn’t survive 4 years she opted out of her sr season so she could transfer.Carrington played at Stanford for four years and graduated (with two degrees). Because a knee injury limited her senior season to just five games, she was granted a medical hardship waiver. She attended Baylor as a graduate student, where she competed using that additional year of eligibility.
And it's never been clear to me that Carrington had a consistently clear "option" to return for the 2020-21 Season (for what ultimately became a national championship season for Stanford WBB). I recall that Wilson and Carrington both potentially had fifth-year eligibility and that Stanford initially appeared to have only one available scholarship. Wilson received approval for her fifth year and it was announced she was returning to Stanford. That would have initially left no scholarship available for Carrington. However, Moschkau then announced she was leaving for Wisconsin. That would have created another opening, but I don't know how far along Carrington had been at that point in securing other plans. Ultimately Stanford played with only 14 on the roster that season. Perhaps there are others on this board with more insight, but I wouldn't summarize that whole situation as Carrington opting out of her senior season so she could transfer.
Notwithstanding her questionable choices when it comes to flagrant fouls and flagrant x posts, it's always bothered me that Stanford doesn't count Carrington as an alum in their WNBA roundups, since unlike others she used all of her available eligibility at Stanford, graduated in four years, and grad transferred only because we didn't (initially) have a spot for her. Not sure what she should have done differently given those circumstances and (again, last week notwithstanding), not sure why we'd disclaim an alum who's had a pretty successful W career.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - fullmetal - 08-12-2026
(08-12-2026, 05:24 AM)Jskass Wrote:(08-11-2026, 01:49 PM)2006alum Wrote: That is my precise recollection - Wilson's waiver was granted earlier than Carrington's, the spot went to her, and by the time Moschkau's spot opened up for Carrington she was already in the portal and pursuing Baylor.100%.
Notwithstanding her questionable choices when it comes to flagrant fouls and flagrant x posts, it's always bothered me that Stanford doesn't count Carrington as an alum in their WNBA roundups, since unlike others she used all of her available eligibility at Stanford, graduated in four years, and grad transferred only because we didn't (initially) have a spot for her. Not sure what she should have done differently given those circumstances and (again, last week notwithstanding), not sure why we'd disclaim an alum who's had a pretty successful W career.
Definitely agreed.
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - Spike - 08-12-2026
“Furthermore, I’m the LAST thing from ignorant or asinine when it comes to speaking on ‘white privilege’, do ya research on that one,” Carrington continued. “I actually went to school, one of the top universities might I add, to educate myself on this exact subject. I would never use that term as a rhetorical weapon knowing the historical and social weight it holds without having the proper evidence to substantiate it.”
From today’s Athletic
RE: Stanford WNBA 2026 - M T - 08-12-2026
So she made a shotgun blast with a racial term without saying clearly what she was aiming at and then claims evidence for her vague claim without producing it.
And then she makes a statement that reads like a holier-than-thou assertion.
She has, IMO, two good ways out of this. She can clarify what she meant and present the evidence
Or make an equally public apology and explain why she said what she did.
Or she can choose the low road of neither clarifying her words nor denying them and instead letting her post dangle as a testament to her character.
I don’t think she can now assert “Hey, this was just a ploy to get click$” as it seems someone here offered up.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 08-12-2026
(08-12-2026, 10:01 AM)M T Wrote: So she made a shotgun blast with a racial term without saying clearly what she was aiming at and then claims evidence for her vague claim without producing it.
And then she makes a statement that reads like a holier-than-thou assertion.
She has, IMO, two good ways out of this. She can clarify what she meant and present the evidence
Or make an equally public apology and explain why she said what she did.
Or she can choose the low road of neither clarifying her words nor denying them and instead letting her post dangle as a testament to her character.
I don’t think she can now assert “Hey, this was just a ploy to get click$” as it seems someone here offered up.
Sounds like Carrington is asserting “Stanford Privilege” … we all know that trumps privilege of any color. I think I’ll assert it the next time I shoot my mouth off before checking in with my brain.