[Viking_Guy]

81--

Each player has 5 years to complete four years of eligibility, and in addition can apply for a medical hardship 6th year (I think; Terry probably knows better than I do).  So they can sit out by choice for one year in the first five.  Often times in WBB, that year is for an injury.

But yes, that 5th year is not automatic; witness JJ Hones, who still had a year of eligibility left.  What media guides mean by a "redshirt" year is sloppy language; they generally mean the player did not play in enough games that year (I believe the standard is 20% of the regular season games) to officially use up one year of eligibility. 

Oh, and I think you meant Alex Green (Taylor's the Greenfield) :).

On the game:
Ugh and ugly.  Kevin McGuff has certainly installed his Xavier-era style at UW.  A whole lotta wrasslin' going on in the post, and the referees, beyond their normal Pac-12 inconsistency, were definitely "letting them play."  One thing sitting at the north end of the court: I've never seen, a couple of plays in a row, a Husky player be able to literally throw someone with inside position out of the way and get a rebound, and not be called for a foul.  The new one, I believe it was Mary What"'s a whistle for"d, missed what was going on right in front of her on several plays, including those and a layup attempt by Chiney where one of the Husky women hammered her upper arm from behind with her body without drawing a call.

Regina Rogers may have touch, and is rather nimble for such a large woman, but couldn't hit the broadside of a freethrow, or really anything farther than about 3 feet from the rim.  Not a bad player, but not in the Shawntanyce Polk/Danielle Adams/insert another name here of a truly dangerous big woman.  Except on defense, mostly by running into people.

What killed Stanford in the first half?  When Rogers got her second foul, she went to the bench for a bit.  She came back in as the anchor of a, you guessed it, 2-3 zone by the Huskies.  Which is in large part why Stanford only scored three points in the final 6 minutes of the first half.

The second half, there were positive signs other than Taylor starting to hit shots.  Nneka reversed the ball nicely to the opposite wing through the zone for great open looks, and Jos had a nice dish from the FT line to the corner for another great look.  They just weren't falling.

Glad to hear that Nneka's was a kicked shin and not an ankle; otherwise, with C.al and the Arizona trip coming up, I would have seriously questioned her returning to the court with a 18-20 point lead and only 6 minutes left in the game.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

81--

Each player has 5 years to complete four years of eligibility, and in addition can apply for a medical hardship 6th year (I think; Terry probably knows better than I do).  So they can sit out by choice for one year in the first five.  Often times in WBB, that year is for an injury.

But yes, that 5th year is not automatic; witness JJ Hones, who still had a year of eligibility left.  What media guides mean by a "redshirt" year is sloppy language; they generally mean the player did not play in enough games that year (I believe the standard is 20% of the regular season games) to officially use up one year of eligibility. 

Oh, and I think you meant Alex Green (Taylor's the Greenfield) :).

On the game:
Ugh and ugly.  Kevin McGuff has certainly installed his Xavier-era style at UW.  A whole lotta wrasslin' going on in the post, and the referees, beyond their normal Pac-12 inconsistency, were definitely "letting them play."  One thing sitting at the north end of the court: I've never seen, a couple of plays in a row, a Husky player be able to literally throw someone with inside position out of the way and get a rebound, and not be called for a foul.  The new one, I believe it was Mary What"'s a whistle for"d, missed what was going on right in front of her on several plays, including those and a layup attempt by Chiney where one of the Husky women hammered her upper arm from behind with her body without drawing a call.

Regina Rogers may have touch, and is rather nimble for such a large woman, but couldn't hit the broadside of a freethrow, or really anything farther than about 3 feet from the rim.  Not a bad player, but not in the Shawntanyce Polk/Danielle Adams/insert another name here of a truly dangerous big woman.  Except on defense, mostly by running into people.

What killed Stanford in the first half?  When Rogers got her second foul, she went to the bench for a bit.  She came back in as the anchor of a, you guessed it, 2-3 zone by the Huskies.  Which is in large part why Stanford only scored three points in the final 6 minutes of the first half.

The second half, there were positive signs other than Taylor starting to hit shots.  Nneka reversed the ball nicely to the opposite wing through the zone for great open looks, and Jos had a nice dish from the FT line to the corner for another great look.  They just weren't falling.

Glad to hear that Nneka's was a kicked shin and not an ankle; otherwise, with C.al and the Arizona trip coming up, I would have seriously questioned her returning to the court with a 18-20 point lead and only 6 minutes left in the game.

VG

[CompSci87]

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.  Ros Gold-Onwude returned for a fifth year (it's said) only because Skylar Diggins turned down Stanford and decided to go to the University of South Bend, freeing up a scholarship.

p.s. Wikipedia has a detailed article about redshirt rules if you want all the gory details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_%2..._sports%29

[CompSci87]

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.  Ros Gold-Onwude returned for a fifth year (it's said) only because Skylar Diggins turned down Stanford and decided to go to the University of South Bend, freeing up a scholarship.

p.s. Wikipedia has a detailed article about redshirt rules if you want all the gory details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_%2..._sports%29

[CompSci87]

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.  Ros Gold-Onwude returned for a fifth year (it's said) only because Skylar Diggins turned down Stanford and decided to go to the University of South Bend, freeing up a scholarship.

p.s. Wikipedia has a detailed article about redshirt rules if you want all the gory details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_%2..._sports%29

[CompSci87]

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.  Ros Gold-Onwude returned for a fifth year (it's said) only because Skylar Diggins turned down Stanford and decided to go to the University of South Bend, freeing up a scholarship.

p.s. Wikipedia has a detailed article about redshirt rules if you want all the gory details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_%2..._sports%29

[CompSci87]

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.  Ros Gold-Onwude returned for a fifth year (it's said) only because Skylar Diggins turned down Stanford and decided to go to the University of South Bend, freeing up a scholarship.

p.s. Wikipedia has a detailed article about redshirt rules if you want all the gory details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_%2..._sports%29

[CompSci87]

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.  Ros Gold-Onwude returned for a fifth year (it's said) only because Skylar Diggins turned down Stanford and decided to go to the University of South Bend, freeing up a scholarship.

p.s. Wikipedia has a detailed article about redshirt rules if you want all the gory details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_%2..._sports%29

[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.

[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.

[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.

[pepper1]

Good discussion of an ugly game.  Several other impressions:

1. A bit disappointing that Bonnie is now jerking the release on what was a sweet 3-point shot (jerked her FT release too & even the one 3 that went in was painful to watch) -- hopefully they can get that turned around.  Taylor, on the other hand, had the arc back in her shot & pretty much ended any suspense in the game during the second half.
2.  Both Sisters had several uncharacteristic fumbles of rebounds under the defensive basket -- strange to see.
3.  Agree with statement about UW's new coach McGuff -- he had team playing tough, physical game a la Xavier.  UW is likely to be formidable in future years if they get a bit more talent & depth.
4.  Nice to see Chiney step up with some emotionally aggressive, tough play at several points when it seemed like Cardinal had become uninspired & a bit timid.  It's the very necessary role that Jillian & Kayla have played in the past.
5.  Amber is looking more & more like the real thing at the point & can hopefully confirm her credentials against the most talented team the Cardinal will play before March, Cal, next Saturday.

[pepper1]

Good discussion of an ugly game.  Several other impressions:

1. A bit disappointing that Bonnie is now jerking the release on what was a sweet 3-point shot (jerked her FT release too & even the one 3 that went in was painful to watch) -- hopefully they can get that turned around.  Taylor, on the other hand, had the arc back in her shot & pretty much ended any suspense in the game during the second half.
2.  Both Sisters had several uncharacteristic fumbles of rebounds under the defensive basket -- strange to see.
3.  Agree with statement about UW's new coach McGuff -- he had team playing tough, physical game a la Xavier.  UW is likely to be formidable in future years if they get a bit more talent & depth.
4.  Nice to see Chiney step up with some emotionally aggressive, tough play at several points when it seemed like Cardinal had become uninspired & a bit timid.  It's the very necessary role that Jillian & Kayla have played in the past.
5.  Amber is looking more & more like the real thing at the point & can hopefully confirm her credentials against the most talented team the Cardinal will play before March, Cal, next Saturday.

[pepper1]

Good discussion of an ugly game.  Several other impressions:

1. A bit disappointing that Bonnie is now jerking the release on what was a sweet 3-point shot (jerked her FT release too & even the one 3 that went in was painful to watch) -- hopefully they can get that turned around.  Taylor, on the other hand, had the arc back in her shot & pretty much ended any suspense in the game during the second half.
2.  Both Sisters had several uncharacteristic fumbles of rebounds under the defensive basket -- strange to see.
3.  Agree with statement about UW's new coach McGuff -- he had team playing tough, physical game a la Xavier.  UW is likely to be formidable in future years if they get a bit more talent & depth.
4.  Nice to see Chiney step up with some emotionally aggressive, tough play at several points when it seemed like Cardinal had become uninspired & a bit timid.  It's the very necessary role that Jillian & Kayla have played in the past.
5.  Amber is looking more & more like the real thing at the point & can hopefully confirm her credentials against the most talented team the Cardinal will play before March, Cal, next Saturday.

[pepper1]

Good discussion of an ugly game.  Several other impressions:

1. A bit disappointing that Bonnie is now jerking the release on what was a sweet 3-point shot (jerked her FT release too & even the one 3 that went in was painful to watch) -- hopefully they can get that turned around.  Taylor, on the other hand, had the arc back in her shot & pretty much ended any suspense in the game during the second half.
2.  Both Sisters had several uncharacteristic fumbles of rebounds under the defensive basket -- strange to see.
3.  Agree with statement about UW's new coach McGuff -- he had team playing tough, physical game a la Xavier.  UW is likely to be formidable in future years if they get a bit more talent & depth.
4.  Nice to see Chiney step up with some emotionally aggressive, tough play at several points when it seemed like Cardinal had become uninspired & a bit timid.  It's the very necessary role that Jillian & Kayla have played in the past.
5.  Amber is looking more & more like the real thing at the point & can hopefully confirm her credentials against the most talented team the Cardinal will play before March, Cal, next Saturday.

[pepper1]

Good discussion of an ugly game.  Several other impressions:

1. A bit disappointing that Bonnie is now jerking the release on what was a sweet 3-point shot (jerked her FT release too & even the one 3 that went in was painful to watch) -- hopefully they can get that turned around.  Taylor, on the other hand, had the arc back in her shot & pretty much ended any suspense in the game during the second half.
2.  Both Sisters had several uncharacteristic fumbles of rebounds under the defensive basket -- strange to see.
3.  Agree with statement about UW's new coach McGuff -- he had team playing tough, physical game a la Xavier.  UW is likely to be formidable in future years if they get a bit more talent & depth.
4.  Nice to see Chiney step up with some emotionally aggressive, tough play at several points when it seemed like Cardinal had become uninspired & a bit timid.  It's the very necessary role that Jillian & Kayla have played in the past.
5.  Amber is looking more & more like the real thing at the point & can hopefully confirm her credentials against the most talented team the Cardinal will play before March, Cal, next Saturday.

[pepper1]

Good discussion of an ugly game.  Several other impressions:

1. A bit disappointing that Bonnie is now jerking the release on what was a sweet 3-point shot (jerked her FT release too & even the one 3 that went in was painful to watch) -- hopefully they can get that turned around.  Taylor, on the other hand, had the arc back in her shot & pretty much ended any suspense in the game during the second half.
2.  Both Sisters had several uncharacteristic fumbles of rebounds under the defensive basket -- strange to see.
3.  Agree with statement about UW's new coach McGuff -- he had team playing tough, physical game a la Xavier.  UW is likely to be formidable in future years if they get a bit more talent & depth.
4.  Nice to see Chiney step up with some emotionally aggressive, tough play at several points when it seemed like Cardinal had become uninspired & a bit timid.  It's the very necessary role that Jillian & Kayla have played in the past.
5.  Amber is looking more & more like the real thing at the point & can hopefully confirm her credentials against the most talented team the Cardinal will play before March, Cal, next Saturday.