[81alum]

While Oregon State has given us some difficult games in the last couple of years, tonight was not one of them.  After they closed to 11-12 about 8 minutes into the game, we pushed the lead out to 10, then in the second half to 20, 30, nearly 40.  Finally a game in which our Offense was as good as our defense.  Finally a game in which Chiney could rest for long minutes, and in which many players got needed minutes.  However, Toni was still not dressed to play.

Chiney went out of the game with about 11 minutes left.  She had just heaved up a ridiculous prayer that went through with an and-one to follow.  She finished with 19 points and 12 rebounds.  A key was the officiating.  Unlike last game, this time they called a lot of the hacking fouls that other teams routinely perpetrate on Chiney.  She was 11/13 from the line, mostly in the first half.

Amber's offense heated up, she was 7-8 for 15 points and had 6 assists.  Ruef had another solid utilitarian game with 6 points, 10 rebounds, and 6 assists.  Joslyn finally heated up in the second half and had 11 points--going over 1000 for her career.  Her first made three brought visible relief to her.  Sara had a tough defensive assignment to cover OSU's star guard Weisner, which she seemed to do fairly well, although Weisner wound up with 12 points.

Noteworthy was that our three point shooting improved in this game, significantly.  It mostly improved late in the second half when the game was in the bag and players were more loose.  Particularly impressive was the return of Tailor Greenfield, with 4/5 treys.  Overall, the team was 45.5% from three.

OSU did well with the rebounds in the first half, but we turned it around and wound up with a 38-27 advantage.  Neither team turned the ball over much, but we were very low at only 7 for the game.  We had 15 assists on 32 made baskets.

This game was a very useful confidence-booster and may have helped us to work on several weaknesses that needed to be addressed.  We need to continue to improve.  C.al looked very, very impressive in its win tonight, and you have to believe that we will soon enough be playing them for the third time.

[81alum]

While Oregon State has given us some difficult games in the last couple of years, tonight was not one of them.  After they closed to 11-12 about 8 minutes into the game, we pushed the lead out to 10, then in the second half to 20, 30, nearly 40.  Finally a game in which our Offense was as good as our defense.  Finally a game in which Chiney could rest for long minutes, and in which many players got needed minutes.  However, Toni was still not dressed to play.

Chiney went out of the game with about 11 minutes left.  She had just heaved up a ridiculous prayer that went through with an and-one to follow.  She finished with 19 points and 12 rebounds.  A key was the officiating.  Unlike last game, this time they called a lot of the hacking fouls that other teams routinely perpetrate on Chiney.  She was 11/13 from the line, mostly in the first half.

Amber's offense heated up, she was 7-8 for 15 points and had 6 assists.  Ruef had another solid utilitarian game with 6 points, 10 rebounds, and 6 assists.  Joslyn finally heated up in the second half and had 11 points--going over 1000 for her career.  Her first made three brought visible relief to her.  Sara had a tough defensive assignment to cover OSU's star guard Weisner, which she seemed to do fairly well, although Weisner wound up with 12 points.

Noteworthy was that our three point shooting improved in this game, significantly.  It mostly improved late in the second half when the game was in the bag and players were more loose.  Particularly impressive was the return of Tailor Greenfield, with 4/5 treys.  Overall, the team was 45.5% from three.

OSU did well with the rebounds in the first half, but we turned it around and wound up with a 38-27 advantage.  Neither team turned the ball over much, but we were very low at only 7 for the game.  We had 15 assists on 32 made baskets.

This game was a very useful confidence-booster and may have helped us to work on several weaknesses that needed to be addressed.  We need to continue to improve.  C.al looked very, very impressive in its win tonight, and you have to believe that we will soon enough be playing them for the third time.

[M T]

(Whew!  I'm glad we got a post on the game before Garvin noticed.  Thanks, 81alum !)

I've seen so many games like tonight's over the years that Tara's been here.  Sort of a sense of pleasant deja vu!
Let's not forget to say Congrats to Jos for passing 1,000 points.  I wonder if she was a bit anxious as she started off really slow and didn't do much in the first half, but started hitting in the middle of the second half.  Judging from the replay on TV, she didn't know she had passed the mark, but you can see her trying to figure out what Chiney is telling her on the way back down the court.

While we didn't have 4 starters in, we seemed to play pretty well with Chiney out.

Filling in more info on stats.  The 10 3-pointers ties the high for the season.  The 6 total personal fouls was the lowest of the season (avg 14), giving up only 5 FT attempts for OSU, our season low.  OSU only had 14 fouls (avg 15), so one can't really say the refs controlled this game.  But maybe the officials changed their calling at the half.  We had 15 FTA in the first half (IIRC, 12 were for Chiney) and only 3 in the second half.  The 90 points was 2 less than our high for the season.  Our rebounding turned out to be about our average.  Our 7 TO was just 1 more than our best for the season.  Our 31 bench points were just 2 less than our highest of the season.  Over the last 4 games, we've shot 67 of 79 FTA for 84.8%.  The game was played at a fast pace, having 15 more shots (total over both teams) than our average games.

As I look at the stats, I think it shows that teams should continue to play aggressively with Stanford.  OSU didn't and they got clobbered.  Of course, if we're hitting our 3s, then there will be fewer interior fouls called.  On the other hand, Mikaela showed really good play on the interior.  That's a good sign for next year, without Jos.

I wanted to run these numbers in a game where Chiney sat out a good bit:

		F	L	O	O	R	|		BENCH	|	Flr-Bnch
Player	Min	Opts	Dpts	NetPts	OP/g	DP/g	NetP/G	OP/g	DP/g	NetP/G	NetP/G
Camp, Jasmine	8:58	16	16	0	71.4	71.4	0.0	  95.4	47.7	47.7	-47.7
Green, Alex	6:39	12	14	-2	72.2	84.2	-12.0	  93.6	46.8	46.8	-58.8
Greenfield, Taylor	23:30	59	32	27	100.4	54.5	46.0	  75.2	50.9	24.2	  21.7
James, Sara	21:30	47	26	21	87.4	48.4	39.1	  93.0	58.4	34.6	  4.5
Ogwumike, Chiney	28:00	65	35	30	92.9	50.0	42.9	  83.3	60.0	23.3	  19.5
Orrange, Amber	31:02	74	37	37	95.4	47.7	47.7	  71.4	71.4	0.0	  47.7
Payne, Erica	1:56	4	3	1	82.8	62.1	20.7	  90.4	52.5	37.8	-17.1
Picknell, Tess	9:05	18	16	2	79.3	70.5	8.8	  93.2	47.9	45.3	-36.5
Ruef, Mikaela	26:58	63	33	30	93.4	48.9	44.5	  82.9	61.4	21.5	  23.0
Samuelson, Bonnie	18:39	44	21	23	94.4	45.0	49.3	  86.2	60.0	26.2	  23.1
Tinkle, Joslyn	23:43	48	32	16	81.0	54.0	27.0	103.2	51.6	51.6	-24.6

At least for this game's performance, Tess & Alex & Jasmine aren't ready for prime time, but it is good they got time.  Jos didn't have a very good night.  Bonnie, Mikaela, Taylor, and Chiney had good games.  Similarly to the UConn game (but with an entirely opposite meaning), Stanford played OSU evenly during the time Amber was out of the game.  Amber had a very good game, but when she was out, we used no one that brought the ball down the court well.

Note that Stanford won the part of the game without Chiney on the floor.  That included much of the time when Amber was out and we had problems at the point.

We miss Toni for bringing the ball down with Amber out or getting out-played.  If we have some more easy games, we should pull Amber & put in Alex & Jasmine with the hope that one of them can get the experience they need.  Let's keep thinking good thoughts for Toni's health.

I was going to say that our defense was again great.  It felt that way, but I had to stop & think about it some.  OSU was only 4 points below their offensive average.  What happened was that the second half was played at a fast pace, which let them have a lot of chances, and therefore they scored more points.  We beat them by 18 in the first half and by 19 in the second half.  OSU scored 21 in the first half but 32 in the second half.

[M T]

(Whew!  I'm glad we got a post on the game before Garvin noticed.  Thanks, 81alum !)

I've seen so many games like tonight's over the years that Tara's been here.  Sort of a sense of pleasant deja vu!
Let's not forget to say Congrats to Jos for passing 1,000 points.  I wonder if she was a bit anxious as she started off really slow and didn't do much in the first half, but started hitting in the middle of the second half.  Judging from the replay on TV, she didn't know she had passed the mark, but you can see her trying to figure out what Chiney is telling her on the way back down the court.

While we didn't have 4 starters in, we seemed to play pretty well with Chiney out.

Filling in more info on stats.  The 10 3-pointers ties the high for the season.  The 6 total personal fouls was the lowest of the season (avg 14), giving up only 5 FT attempts for OSU, our season low.  OSU only had 14 fouls (avg 15), so one can't really say the refs controlled this game.  But maybe the officials changed their calling at the half.  We had 15 FTA in the first half (IIRC, 12 were for Chiney) and only 3 in the second half.  The 90 points was 2 less than our high for the season.  Our rebounding turned out to be about our average.  Our 7 TO was just 1 more than our best for the season.  Our 31 bench points were just 2 less than our highest of the season.  Over the last 4 games, we've shot 67 of 79 FTA for 84.8%.  The game was played at a fast pace, having 15 more shots (total over both teams) than our average games.

As I look at the stats, I think it shows that teams should continue to play aggressively with Stanford.  OSU didn't and they got clobbered.  Of course, if we're hitting our 3s, then there will be fewer interior fouls called.  On the other hand, Mikaela showed really good play on the interior.  That's a good sign for next year, without Jos.

I wanted to run these numbers in a game where Chiney sat out a good bit:

		F	L	O	O	R	|		BENCH	|	Flr-Bnch
Player	Min	Opts	Dpts	NetPts	OP/g	DP/g	NetP/G	OP/g	DP/g	NetP/G	NetP/G
Camp, Jasmine	8:58	16	16	0	71.4	71.4	0.0	  95.4	47.7	47.7	-47.7
Green, Alex	6:39	12	14	-2	72.2	84.2	-12.0	  93.6	46.8	46.8	-58.8
Greenfield, Taylor	23:30	59	32	27	100.4	54.5	46.0	  75.2	50.9	24.2	  21.7
James, Sara	21:30	47	26	21	87.4	48.4	39.1	  93.0	58.4	34.6	  4.5
Ogwumike, Chiney	28:00	65	35	30	92.9	50.0	42.9	  83.3	60.0	23.3	  19.5
Orrange, Amber	31:02	74	37	37	95.4	47.7	47.7	  71.4	71.4	0.0	  47.7
Payne, Erica	1:56	4	3	1	82.8	62.1	20.7	  90.4	52.5	37.8	-17.1
Picknell, Tess	9:05	18	16	2	79.3	70.5	8.8	  93.2	47.9	45.3	-36.5
Ruef, Mikaela	26:58	63	33	30	93.4	48.9	44.5	  82.9	61.4	21.5	  23.0
Samuelson, Bonnie	18:39	44	21	23	94.4	45.0	49.3	  86.2	60.0	26.2	  23.1
Tinkle, Joslyn	23:43	48	32	16	81.0	54.0	27.0	103.2	51.6	51.6	-24.6

At least for this game's performance, Tess & Alex & Jasmine aren't ready for prime time, but it is good they got time.  Jos didn't have a very good night.  Bonnie, Mikaela, Taylor, and Chiney had good games.  Similarly to the UConn game (but with an entirely opposite meaning), Stanford played OSU evenly during the time Amber was out of the game.  Amber had a very good game, but when she was out, we used no one that brought the ball down the court well.

Note that Stanford won the part of the game without Chiney on the floor.  That included much of the time when Amber was out and we had problems at the point.

We miss Toni for bringing the ball down with Amber out or getting out-played.  If we have some more easy games, we should pull Amber & put in Alex & Jasmine with the hope that one of them can get the experience they need.  Let's keep thinking good thoughts for Toni's health.

I was going to say that our defense was again great.  It felt that way, but I had to stop & think about it some.  OSU was only 4 points below their offensive average.  What happened was that the second half was played at a fast pace, which let them have a lot of chances, and therefore they scored more points.  We beat them by 18 in the first half and by 19 in the second half.  OSU scored 21 in the first half but 32 in the second half.

[81alum]

Typical of Tara, she identified the one weakness in the game--our poor rebounding in the first half.  The game she must be referring below to is the 2nd Berkeley game, where we were outrebounded 43-39, gave up 20 offensive rebounds, and gave up 11 second chance points.  That seems to be her focus from here on out.  However, C.al has begun to shoot treys with regularity since they last beat us--meaning that they will be more difficult to defend and focussing on rebounding only probably won't be enough. 

The Beavers shot 2 for 10 from 3-point range in the first half, missing six of their first seven. But they crashed the boards for 11 first-half offensive rebounds and held a 22-21 edge in the opening 20 minutes. The Cardinal wound up with a 46-34 rebounding advantage.

"I really think that if our team is serious we will have to box out," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said. "We already lost one game because we didn't rebound. Our team is going to have to decide."

Tara also commented on Toni--only to say they were hopeful but do not know if Toni will return this season.  That simply does not sound very good.  I know that they want to respect her privacy, but there are a lot of well-meaning fans who are very worried about Toni--that whatever this is could be much more serious than basketball.  I certainly hope that is not the case, and that we will be able to see a happy, healthy Toni Kokenis competing in WBB and the rest of life next year!

[81alum]

Typical of Tara, she identified the one weakness in the game--our poor rebounding in the first half.  The game she must be referring below to is the 2nd Berkeley game, where we were outrebounded 43-39, gave up 20 offensive rebounds, and gave up 11 second chance points.  That seems to be her focus from here on out.  However, C.al has begun to shoot treys with regularity since they last beat us--meaning that they will be more difficult to defend and focussing on rebounding only probably won't be enough. 

The Beavers shot 2 for 10 from 3-point range in the first half, missing six of their first seven. But they crashed the boards for 11 first-half offensive rebounds and held a 22-21 edge in the opening 20 minutes. The Cardinal wound up with a 46-34 rebounding advantage.

"I really think that if our team is serious we will have to box out," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said. "We already lost one game because we didn't rebound. Our team is going to have to decide."

Tara also commented on Toni--only to say they were hopeful but do not know if Toni will return this season.  That simply does not sound very good.  I know that they want to respect her privacy, but there are a lot of well-meaning fans who are very worried about Toni--that whatever this is could be much more serious than basketball.  I certainly hope that is not the case, and that we will be able to see a happy, healthy Toni Kokenis competing in WBB and the rest of life next year!

[meos]

Nothing but superlatives for this game. Forget about the score, the team played well, the right way. They did a good job of bringing their shoot-round shots into the game. Much better consistency. There were more early offense shots taken; one a two-on-two from the 3-point line (shot made).  Aggressive decisive plays made and shots taken most of the time.

Very nice to see Chiney have some rest (and have the team continue to play the right way).
On Chiney's continued work on the left side box: one was blocked, but no matter, keep working at it. A few games back, Chiney did a pivot to face the basket from that left side; very effective because it opens up the strong right hand again, on the left side (I've been waiting to see that face-up move again). Face-up, quick pump fake, make a move .. shoot the shot ...

Overall, really nice progress again .. keep it going.

[meos]

Nothing but superlatives for this game. Forget about the score, the team played well, the right way. They did a good job of bringing their shoot-round shots into the game. Much better consistency. There were more early offense shots taken; one a two-on-two from the 3-point line (shot made).  Aggressive decisive plays made and shots taken most of the time.

Very nice to see Chiney have some rest (and have the team continue to play the right way).
On Chiney's continued work on the left side box: one was blocked, but no matter, keep working at it. A few games back, Chiney did a pivot to face the basket from that left side; very effective because it opens up the strong right hand again, on the left side (I've been waiting to see that face-up move again). Face-up, quick pump fake, make a move .. shoot the shot ...

Overall, really nice progress again .. keep it going.

[CompSci87]

The privacy stuff is crap. And I'll lay odds of a thousand to one that Toni Kokenis doesn't care if they talk about the reason she's out.

Why do you think Tara is not giving the reason, then? Just Haubaughian secretiveness?

[CompSci87]

The privacy stuff is crap. And I'll lay odds of a thousand to one that Toni Kokenis doesn't care if they talk about the reason she's out.

Why do you think Tara is not giving the reason, then? Just Haubaughian secretiveness?

[FarmDad.01]

Why do you think Tara is not giving the reason, then? Just Haubaughian secretiveness?

Yes.

I believe Kokenis was held out of an early-season game due to a mild on-court concussion. Stanford has always promptly announced such an injury: Witness Jamie Carey, who wasn't be cleared by Stanford doctors and ended a stellar collegiate WBB career at Texas. Kokenis played often -- and well -- after that incident.

She then sat out a couple games due to a reported mild ankle sprain, yet returned to play with foot speed, effectiveness and flair. And no opposing team took shots at her head or kicks to her ankles.

I think we can also rule out academic ineligibility, viewly Kokenis played (very well) as late as 03 FEB.

So yes... The hemming and hawing about why she's not playing is, in Ross Perot's phrase, 'gorilla dust.'

Kokenis has an issue that would render me catatonic. Yet even without suiting up, she graces the bench at the last five away and home games, apparently at peace with herself.

So wassup?...

[FarmDad.01]

Why do you think Tara is not giving the reason, then? Just Haubaughian secretiveness?

Yes.

I believe Kokenis was held out of an early-season game due to a mild on-court concussion. Stanford has always promptly announced such an injury: Witness Jamie Carey, who wasn't be cleared by Stanford doctors and ended a stellar collegiate WBB career at Texas. Kokenis played often -- and well -- after that incident.

She then sat out a couple games due to a reported mild ankle sprain, yet returned to play with foot speed, effectiveness and flair. And no opposing team took shots at her head or kicks to her ankles.

I think we can also rule out academic ineligibility, viewly Kokenis played (very well) as late as 03 FEB.

So yes... The hemming and hawing about why she's not playing is, in Ross Perot's phrase, 'gorilla dust.'

Kokenis has an issue that would render me catatonic. Yet even without suiting up, she graces the bench at the last five away and home games, apparently at peace with herself.

So wassup?...

[BobK]

Toni missed the late spring and summer with this illness.  I'll really disagree about we have some right to know about athletes illnesses injury yes illness no.  Toni's is a mystery.  The players will not comment either.  It's long it's on going and it's very sad. 

[BobK]

Toni missed the late spring and summer with this illness.  I'll really disagree about we have some right to know about athletes illnesses injury yes illness no.  Toni's is a mystery.  The players will not comment either.  It's long it's on going and it's very sad. 

[81alum]

I agree with Bob that we do not have a right to know about illnesses.  I'm just saying that the Stanford WBB community is very, very supportive and I cannot imagine any illness that would not prompt an outpouring of love and support for Toni.

Bob, you say it is "very sad."  Knowing how much inside information you often have, that makes me think that you know what it is, but like the players you are ethically bound not to say.  But now I am positively alarmed, thinking through all the "very sad" chronic illnesses that can afflict young people. 

I bet it is as simple as Toni not wanting to make a spectacle of her illness or to disrupt the season, but to keep attention focussed on the team and her friends.  All right.  This is the last I will post about it.  But Toni should also know, if this gets back to her,  that this community of fans cares not only for the success of the team but for the well being of all of its members.  We are Stanford WBB fans because we do care about more than winning, but take great pleasure in how the team helps its members develop into outstanding adults.  Having empathy for an ailing player is not at odds with cheering for the team. 

So, Toni, all the fans of Stanford WBB who congregate in places like this do send you our best wishes for overcoming whatever it is that has been thrown in your path.  We care about you and for you as a fellow member of the Stanford community, because that's what people in the Stanford community do. 

[81alum]

I agree with Bob that we do not have a right to know about illnesses.  I'm just saying that the Stanford WBB community is very, very supportive and I cannot imagine any illness that would not prompt an outpouring of love and support for Toni.

Bob, you say it is "very sad."  Knowing how much inside information you often have, that makes me think that you know what it is, but like the players you are ethically bound not to say.  But now I am positively alarmed, thinking through all the "very sad" chronic illnesses that can afflict young people. 

I bet it is as simple as Toni not wanting to make a spectacle of her illness or to disrupt the season, but to keep attention focussed on the team and her friends.  All right.  This is the last I will post about it.  But Toni should also know, if this gets back to her,  that this community of fans cares not only for the success of the team but for the well being of all of its members.  We are Stanford WBB fans because we do care about more than winning, but take great pleasure in how the team helps its members develop into outstanding adults.  Having empathy for an ailing player is not at odds with cheering for the team. 

So, Toni, all the fans of Stanford WBB who congregate in places like this do send you our best wishes for overcoming whatever it is that has been thrown in your path.  We care about you and for you as a fellow member of the Stanford community, because that's what people in the Stanford community do. 

[BobK]

No I do not know at all about Toni's illness.  It is on all our minds and we all wish her the best and a complete recovery.  She can travel and not play she can do well in school and not play. 

If you go to Chalk Talks or post games chats you know or would see the care we all have for Toni

And as a team we miss her. She could help us to another Final 4 and without her it's that much tougher.  She has so many skills and of course as fast on the break with the ball as any player in the country. 

Great post 81. 

[BobK]

No I do not know at all about Toni's illness.  It is on all our minds and we all wish her the best and a complete recovery.  She can travel and not play she can do well in school and not play. 

If you go to Chalk Talks or post games chats you know or would see the care we all have for Toni

And as a team we miss her. She could help us to another Final 4 and without her it's that much tougher.  She has so many skills and of course as fast on the break with the ball as any player in the country. 

Great post 81. 

[treefan]

Best wishes to Toni. Hope she feels better soon.

Good posts by 81 and Bobbk.

[treefan]

Best wishes to Toni. Hope she feels better soon.

Good posts by 81 and Bobbk.

[76lsjumb]

Just Haubaughian secretiveness?

Yes. But Harbaugh is starting to look rational on this issue compared to the current crop of coaches. Holding Josh Owens out for a year, telling reporters he might never play again, but refusing to say why, gave rise to a crop of really, really unpleasant rumors. Then you have Shaw's statement on Josh Nunes the other day -- something happened, something weird happened, something unknown in the history of Stanford sports happened...but we're not going to tell you what. And of course there was the attempt to cover up the suicide of a women's volleyball player.

I have no idea what's going on with Nunes, but I think you're painting with too broad a brush when you bring in the Owens and volleyball situations.  It wasn't too long before the basic facts of Josh's situation were what is generally referred to as a "poorly kept secret," and, in fact, it was apparently a medical condition that might have been career-ending but, fortunatley for him, resolved so that that didn't turn out to be the case.  And, I believe the formal non-disclosure was family-requested [although I may be wrong about that]. 

As for the volleyball situation, I do not believe there was any attempt -- at least by the coaches to whom you seem to be attributing it -- to "cover up" what happened [at least to the extent "cover up" is considered to be a pejorative term].  The coaches were sensitive to the family in an obviously tragic situation.  Seems eminently rational [as well as fundamentally right] under the circumstances.

[76lsjumb]

Just Haubaughian secretiveness?

Yes. But Harbaugh is starting to look rational on this issue compared to the current crop of coaches. Holding Josh Owens out for a year, telling reporters he might never play again, but refusing to say why, gave rise to a crop of really, really unpleasant rumors. Then you have Shaw's statement on Josh Nunes the other day -- something happened, something weird happened, something unknown in the history of Stanford sports happened...but we're not going to tell you what. And of course there was the attempt to cover up the suicide of a women's volleyball player.

I have no idea what's going on with Nunes, but I think you're painting with too broad a brush when you bring in the Owens and volleyball situations.  It wasn't too long before the basic facts of Josh's situation were what is generally referred to as a "poorly kept secret," and, in fact, it was apparently a medical condition that might have been career-ending but, fortunatley for him, resolved so that that didn't turn out to be the case.  And, I believe the formal non-disclosure was family-requested [although I may be wrong about that]. 

As for the volleyball situation, I do not believe there was any attempt -- at least by the coaches to whom you seem to be attributing it -- to "cover up" what happened [at least to the extent "cover up" is considered to be a pejorative term].  The coaches were sensitive to the family in an obviously tragic situation.  Seems eminently rational [as well as fundamentally right] under the circumstances.

[meos]

Hijacking the thread?
Aly Beebe, Alex Green, Jasmine Camp, Toni Kokenis -- have all spent more or less time not being able to play. Not sure how stirring this particular pot helps the team at this stage of the season, but it certainly seems inappropriate in this game thread -- IMHO.

[meos]

Hijacking the thread?
Aly Beebe, Alex Green, Jasmine Camp, Toni Kokenis -- have all spent more or less time not being able to play. Not sure how stirring this particular pot helps the team at this stage of the season, but it certainly seems inappropriate in this game thread -- IMHO.

[76lsjumb]

A D-1 athlete -- particularly a D-1 athlete at an elite program -- sacrifices a certain zone of privacy. For instance, your coaches discuss your work openly with reporters in a way the professors never would. That includes harsh criticism -- "he's got to be to catch balls like that one to keep his starting job" that you'd never hear aloud from a history professor discussing one of his students.

The same goes for health issues, especially health issues that keep a player off the field and especially health issues that cause a prolonged absence. To pretend fans won't notice a player's absence or dimished performance, and then speculate on the causes, is absurd. And speculation will inevitably be much worse that reality, as it was in the Owens case.

The AD press releases on the hospitalization and, eventually, the death of the vollyball player -- said that there had been a "medical emergency" her residence hall. I'm sure I'm not the only one who took that to mean something endemic to the residence: faulty wiring? Sinkhole? Chemical spill? If I were a parent with a kid living there, I would have been frantic. Beyond that, there is the possibility that suppression of the facts may well cover up a broader campus public-health issue, and the certainty that Stanford's attitude bolstered beliefs that suicide is a disreputable act which shouldn't be spoken of. That's not only wrong but futile, since death certificates are public documents and the truth was bound to emerge -- and bound to be treated more luridly as a result of Stanford's coverup.

In the words of the immortal [  ??? ] Lee Corso:  "Not so fast, my friend!"

I'm not aware of any federal laws regulating disclosure of one's ability to catch a ball [or even, for that matter, one's ability to accurately recount the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire in history class], but you have most likely heard of HIPAA, which definitely regulates dislcosure relating to health issues, including those that affect a student's ability to play.

In this regard, the following is instructive:

http://ortho.stanford.edu/lacob/PDFs/HIP...zation.pdf

It seems to me that, unless we know for a fact that a particular athlete has signed the requisite consents to allow dissemination of his/her health information to the media, we might reasonably assume, in those instances where such information is not disclosed, that the reason for the non-disclosure is that such consents have NOT, in fact, been provided by the athlete in question.  Of course, if disclosure is made in the absence of such consent, there are some rather severe penalties that can/will be imposed.

Moreover, even if the requisite legal consent has been provided, there may be any number of other legitimate reasons why a coach or AD may choose not to reveal the information.  You are certainly right that many fans may imagine things that are far worse than the actual condition, but that's their problem, not the coach's. 

[76lsjumb]

A D-1 athlete -- particularly a D-1 athlete at an elite program -- sacrifices a certain zone of privacy. For instance, your coaches discuss your work openly with reporters in a way the professors never would. That includes harsh criticism -- "he's got to be to catch balls like that one to keep his starting job" that you'd never hear aloud from a history professor discussing one of his students.

The same goes for health issues, especially health issues that keep a player off the field and especially health issues that cause a prolonged absence. To pretend fans won't notice a player's absence or dimished performance, and then speculate on the causes, is absurd. And speculation will inevitably be much worse that reality, as it was in the Owens case.

The AD press releases on the hospitalization and, eventually, the death of the vollyball player -- said that there had been a "medical emergency" her residence hall. I'm sure I'm not the only one who took that to mean something endemic to the residence: faulty wiring? Sinkhole? Chemical spill? If I were a parent with a kid living there, I would have been frantic. Beyond that, there is the possibility that suppression of the facts may well cover up a broader campus public-health issue, and the certainty that Stanford's attitude bolstered beliefs that suicide is a disreputable act which shouldn't be spoken of. That's not only wrong but futile, since death certificates are public documents and the truth was bound to emerge -- and bound to be treated more luridly as a result of Stanford's coverup.

In the words of the immortal [  ??? ] Lee Corso:  "Not so fast, my friend!"

I'm not aware of any federal laws regulating disclosure of one's ability to catch a ball [or even, for that matter, one's ability to accurately recount the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire in history class], but you have most likely heard of HIPAA, which definitely regulates dislcosure relating to health issues, including those that affect a student's ability to play.

In this regard, the following is instructive:

http://ortho.stanford.edu/lacob/PDFs/HIP...zation.pdf

It seems to me that, unless we know for a fact that a particular athlete has signed the requisite consents to allow dissemination of his/her health information to the media, we might reasonably assume, in those instances where such information is not disclosed, that the reason for the non-disclosure is that such consents have NOT, in fact, been provided by the athlete in question.  Of course, if disclosure is made in the absence of such consent, there are some rather severe penalties that can/will be imposed.

Moreover, even if the requisite legal consent has been provided, there may be any number of other legitimate reasons why a coach or AD may choose not to reveal the information.  You are certainly right that many fans may imagine things that are far worse than the actual condition, but that's their problem, not the coach's. 

[yvonne]

HIPAA was passed in 1996, not 1966, and 2013 minu 1966 is 47, not 57.

[yvonne]

HIPAA was passed in 1996, not 1966, and 2013 minu 1966 is 47, not 57.

[76lsjumb]

Note that law was passed in 1966, 76lsjumb. Can you cite me a single instance in the past 57 years in which legal action was pursued against a coach for disclosing the nature of an athlete's injury or illness? Stanford, in fact, routinely made these disclosures until just a few years ago. (Who can forger Tara's revelation that Cori Enghusen knocked herself out of the lineup by stepping on a pumpkin?)

Moreover, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that the law prevents coaches from discussing something that happened in a game or in a practice that led to an injury. Whatever happened to Josh Nunes in practice was undoubtedly witnessed by scores of people. Nunes cannot possibly have any legal expectation of privacy under such circumstances.

And you're correct that the rumors arising from Stanford's ostentatious displays of secrecy are not the coaches' problems. They are the athletes' problems as the public imagination of their behavior turns grotesque.

It's one thing when a player's leg gets twisted like a pretzel during a nationally-televised game and everyone sees what happened.  It's quite another when, hypothetically, a player complains of shortness of breath during practice, sees the doctor at Stanford Med Center, and gets diagnosed with a previously unknown, underlying medical condition and nobody but the doctor and the player know ... unless and until the player consents to having that information released to whomever.  Sure, over the years we have learned of many situations [Trent Edwards travails come to mind, for example].  But not always.  Perhaps the reason that legal action hasn't been pursued [and I'm just accepting your premise on that; I haven't actually checked] is that, in the those situations where we have learned details, the player has granted consent for that information to be released.

After all, if a Stanford student-athlete is concerned that the "public's imagination" is turning "grotesque," I'm confident that he/she is sufficiently intelligent to figure out a way to get a statement to the media that his/her ingrown toe-nail is simply an in-grown toenail and not some condition worse than even anything Gregory House managed to diagnose and cure.

In fact, based on your journalism experience, perhaps you can explain why it is that reporters always write:  "When asked, the coach declined to elaborate on the nature of Player X's condition,"  while I can't seem to recall any instances of: "So, then I asked Player X 'What's really wrong with you?' and Player X replied "None of your business.'"  Otherwise put, how come reporters apparently don't ask the player directly what the problem is?  It seems to me that, if Player X didn't care about the details being shared and, indeed, was concerned that people's imaginations were running wild, he/she would be only too happy to provide the information directly to the reporter.

[As for math and fact-checking, I am only too happy to leave those duties to Yvonne, to whose expertise in that regard I gladly defer.]

[76lsjumb]

Note that law was passed in 1966, 76lsjumb. Can you cite me a single instance in the past 57 years in which legal action was pursued against a coach for disclosing the nature of an athlete's injury or illness? Stanford, in fact, routinely made these disclosures until just a few years ago. (Who can forger Tara's revelation that Cori Enghusen knocked herself out of the lineup by stepping on a pumpkin?)

Moreover, it is absolutely inconceivable to me that the law prevents coaches from discussing something that happened in a game or in a practice that led to an injury. Whatever happened to Josh Nunes in practice was undoubtedly witnessed by scores of people. Nunes cannot possibly have any legal expectation of privacy under such circumstances.

And you're correct that the rumors arising from Stanford's ostentatious displays of secrecy are not the coaches' problems. They are the athletes' problems as the public imagination of their behavior turns grotesque.

It's one thing when a player's leg gets twisted like a pretzel during a nationally-televised game and everyone sees what happened.  It's quite another when, hypothetically, a player complains of shortness of breath during practice, sees the doctor at Stanford Med Center, and gets diagnosed with a previously unknown, underlying medical condition and nobody but the doctor and the player know ... unless and until the player consents to having that information released to whomever.  Sure, over the years we have learned of many situations [Trent Edwards travails come to mind, for example].  But not always.  Perhaps the reason that legal action hasn't been pursued [and I'm just accepting your premise on that; I haven't actually checked] is that, in the those situations where we have learned details, the player has granted consent for that information to be released.

After all, if a Stanford student-athlete is concerned that the "public's imagination" is turning "grotesque," I'm confident that he/she is sufficiently intelligent to figure out a way to get a statement to the media that his/her ingrown toe-nail is simply an in-grown toenail and not some condition worse than even anything Gregory House managed to diagnose and cure.

In fact, based on your journalism experience, perhaps you can explain why it is that reporters always write:  "When asked, the coach declined to elaborate on the nature of Player X's condition,"  while I can't seem to recall any instances of: "So, then I asked Player X 'What's really wrong with you?' and Player X replied "None of your business.'"  Otherwise put, how come reporters apparently don't ask the player directly what the problem is?  It seems to me that, if Player X didn't care about the details being shared and, indeed, was concerned that people's imaginations were running wild, he/she would be only too happy to provide the information directly to the reporter.

[As for math and fact-checking, I am only too happy to leave those duties to Yvonne, to whose expertise in that regard I gladly defer.]

[yvonne]

So you think Josh Hogan told Shaw:

Garvin, go back to bed!

[yvonne]

So you think Josh Hogan told Shaw:

Garvin, go back to bed!

[76lsjumb]

"Josh Hogan"?  Now THAT'S a story worth pursuing...  ;D  [But, shame on me...I said I'd leave that up to Yvonne...]

You may very well be right about controlling reporter access to players.  But, again, this is Stanford after all.  Any Player who WANTS to get the word out about an injury/illness/whatever has, oh, say, a gazillion ways to do so [think Twitter, Facebook, or probably two or three brand new social media apps that were developed and released to the market while I was typing this post.]  To which I'm guessing your response will be that the players themselves have all been instructed by the coaches/Athletic Department not to release that information.  To which I would respond [again] that this is Stanford after all, with students who are likely smart enough to get the word out indirectly...if they really WANTED to... and with a media that isn't particularly shy about writing things about the school, the athletic department [think Harbaugh bathroom], or the coaches [think FitzGerald et al. on Dawkins] that, under your theory, would lose them necessary access privileges.

Your turn...  :)

[76lsjumb]

"Josh Hogan"?  Now THAT'S a story worth pursuing...  ;D  [But, shame on me...I said I'd leave that up to Yvonne...]

You may very well be right about controlling reporter access to players.  But, again, this is Stanford after all.  Any Player who WANTS to get the word out about an injury/illness/whatever has, oh, say, a gazillion ways to do so [think Twitter, Facebook, or probably two or three brand new social media apps that were developed and released to the market while I was typing this post.]  To which I'm guessing your response will be that the players themselves have all been instructed by the coaches/Athletic Department not to release that information.  To which I would respond [again] that this is Stanford after all, with students who are likely smart enough to get the word out indirectly...if they really WANTED to... and with a media that isn't particularly shy about writing things about the school, the athletic department [think Harbaugh bathroom], or the coaches [think FitzGerald et al. on Dawkins] that, under your theory, would lose them necessary access privileges.

Your turn...  :)

[Kathy]

So you think Josh Hogan told Shaw:

It's Josh Nunes!

It's OK, Garvin ... everyone needs a copy editor now and then  ;)

[Kathy]

So you think Josh Hogan told Shaw:

It's Josh Nunes!

It's OK, Garvin ... everyone needs a copy editor now and then  ;)

[Yellowlab]

I couldn't help but think about  this thread during the game yesterday.  The speculation to my left was post-concussion syndrome, while the speculation to my right was auto-immune disorder.  I certainly don't mean to pass judgement, but I guess it is just human nature to want to gnaw on this kind of bone.

[Yellowlab]

I couldn't help but think about  this thread during the game yesterday.  The speculation to my left was post-concussion syndrome, while the speculation to my right was auto-immune disorder.  I certainly don't mean to pass judgement, but I guess it is just human nature to want to gnaw on this kind of bone.

[treefan]

I couldn't help but think about  this thread during the game yesterday.  The speculation to my left was post-concussion syndrome, while the speculation to my right was auto-immune disorder.  I certainly don't mean to pass judgement, but I guess it is just human nature to want to gnaw on this kind of bone.

If it is an autoimmune disease, it could be one of 40 different types of disease. As such, it is very reasonable that they do not know as many are difficult to diagnose. HIPPA is in place to protect patient privacy for number of reasons, including getting a job, credit, housing, etc. Some of these things may not be needed for a D1 athlete at that moment, but I'm all for respecting Toni's privacy now and for her life after bball.

[treefan]

I couldn't help but think about  this thread during the game yesterday.  The speculation to my left was post-concussion syndrome, while the speculation to my right was auto-immune disorder.  I certainly don't mean to pass judgement, but I guess it is just human nature to want to gnaw on this kind of bone.

If it is an autoimmune disease, it could be one of 40 different types of disease. As such, it is very reasonable that they do not know as many are difficult to diagnose. HIPPA is in place to protect patient privacy for number of reasons, including getting a job, credit, housing, etc. Some of these things may not be needed for a D1 athlete at that moment, but I'm all for respecting Toni's privacy now and for her life after bball.