[81alum]

I suspect part of the thought behind Coach Tucker's statement was that a player who is eligible for a redshirt year is not necessarily invited to stay for a fifth year.

I think you are right and I am beginning to make sense of this.

"Redshirt" refers to eligibility to play and is based on NCAA rules.  That is a right possessed by the player.  Renewing a scholarship, on the other hand,  is the decision of the university, which is never obligated to do so.  (The NCAA does not yet allow multi-year scholarships, although the NCAA President and reformers are trying to get them approved.)

So if a Stanford player has finished 4 years academically and graduated, but was "redshirted" and is thus eligible to play another year, it remains the decision of Stanford whether to fund her with a fifth year of scholarship, just as it was Stanford's decision to give her a 4th year, a 3rd year, and a 2nd year of scholarship. 

At a place like Stanford that actually takes academics seriously, one could say that there is an ethical obligation to fund a player for four years so she can graduate--regardless of her physical status or even whether she performed well as a player.  (I certainly hope that Stanford is supporting the NCAA multi-year scholarship proposal!)  But I don't think you could make the same argument to fund a player for a 5th academic year who already has had the opportunity to graduate--whatever her hard luck as an athlete. 

So bringing Ros back was a decision that could have gone either way, depending on what was "for the good of the team."  What I wonder is whether the coaches recruited one less player than they otherwise would have to save a spot for Sarah for next year.

[81alum]

I suspect part of the thought behind Coach Tucker's statement was that a player who is eligible for a redshirt year is not necessarily invited to stay for a fifth year.

I think you are right and I am beginning to make sense of this.

"Redshirt" refers to eligibility to play and is based on NCAA rules.  That is a right possessed by the player.  Renewing a scholarship, on the other hand,  is the decision of the university, which is never obligated to do so.  (The NCAA does not yet allow multi-year scholarships, although the NCAA President and reformers are trying to get them approved.)

So if a Stanford player has finished 4 years academically and graduated, but was "redshirted" and is thus eligible to play another year, it remains the decision of Stanford whether to fund her with a fifth year of scholarship, just as it was Stanford's decision to give her a 4th year, a 3rd year, and a 2nd year of scholarship. 

At a place like Stanford that actually takes academics seriously, one could say that there is an ethical obligation to fund a player for four years so she can graduate--regardless of her physical status or even whether she performed well as a player.  (I certainly hope that Stanford is supporting the NCAA multi-year scholarship proposal!)  But I don't think you could make the same argument to fund a player for a 5th academic year who already has had the opportunity to graduate--whatever her hard luck as an athlete. 

So bringing Ros back was a decision that could have gone either way, depending on what was "for the good of the team."  What I wonder is whether the coaches recruited one less player than they otherwise would have to save a spot for Sarah for next year.