I don’t know their history. They have to be #1 in California for State Championships. They must have at least 5 National Titles. USA, USA, USA. How many major cities have just 1 National powerhouse like Mitty.
Mitty's 20-21 team already has 8 players with full D1 Offers
- Thread starter TheHillZ
- Start date
- Status
San Jose is nothing like LA in terms of athleticism. When you really look at the athletic make up of the teams in San Jose, a school like BOD, and St Mary's usually has better overall athleticism than Mitty they just aren't coached as well. Don't get me wrong Mitty often has great players but overall not as many raw athletes as those schools. San Jose doesn't have a huge pool of girls basketball talent the way LA does so a comparison to SoCal isn't even fair. Let's be real. San Jose doesn't have as large a concentration of Blacks, Polynesians and more Urban Asians like LA. When you go to LA you start seeing teams like Etiwanda, Long Beach Poly, Centennial Corona, Sierra Canyon and the list goes on. You don't have anything close to that overall in San Jose
I thought Mitty had a 6’1 point guard that is now Stanford’s best player? I thought the NBA dunk champion went to that school? You just named 6 schools in LA that share their top 100 players. What schools in San Jose share the top 10 players with Mitty? Girls basketball isn’t about White or Black like boys basketball. The WNBA’s best point guard, MVP and best rookie are all White. O’Dowd doesn’t get the best players from Alameda, St Joes does. O’Dowd doesn’t get the best players from Richmond or El Cerrito, Salesian does. Just 7 miles into the Oakland tunnel they can’t even get those players on the other side. How come when a White coach gets the best out of their players they are good at coaching but when a Black coach does they are told that they should could have done it better? This is why it took so long for MVP Black quarterbacks to find a job and old White quarterbacks that have never won are in demand. Our kids are fighting for the end of institutional racism. It’s everywhere. The same faces keep saying the same things no matter what year we are in. I would take the Bishop O’Dowd coach over Miramonte coach, Mitty coach. The old St Mary’s coach won all those state titles by just getting his extremely athletic and talented kids to play harder longer. The old Chuck Daly was told that he did his best coaching because he allowed them to have great scrimmages while controlling all of those great players emotions. I haven’t seen too many White coaches that can take a team full of Black and Hispanics girls that are extremely talented and accomplish what Malik does every year. Let’s recognize that a lot of White coaches don’t teach you how to be good people. They make it mandatory that you have a specific background before they can help you. Malik is like Daly. Way more well rounded as a coach than these limited coaches with big clip boards.
Hopefully this is a joke ...
It is incredibly difficult to win a state championship, in any division, even with a talent advantage. These are teenage girls, and consistency is never a strong point. In addition, you have high school refs, who do the best they can, but are still high school level. And the other teams may not have eight D-1 players, but a team with two strong players having great nights and the role players stepping up can give anyone fits.
And it's single-elimination so a couple bad calls, a poor shooting night and you lose to a team you'd beat eight times out of ten.
And nationally? Multiply the difficulty by 25 or more, especially in California. It's a lot easier to go unbeaten or lose only once to a national power in almost every other state. There's no mercy at that level, or in those rankings, as Mitty found out last year (at least in my rankings). You have to play the elite teams and beat most of them, and then come back home and win a state title to even make it to the top five.
Malik and Tom will not get credit because they had superior talent. Lesser talented kids who win their coach always gets the benefit of the doubt and the do more with less title. which is sort of true. it is like durants titles. he did the possible with the most advantages.
>Let’s recognize that a lot of White coaches don’t teach you how to be good people. They make it mandatory that you have a specific background before they can help you.
Could you expand on this please? It sounds like you're saying that only White coaches don't teach you to be good people, which I don't think you mean. And it also sounds like you're saying that White coaches discriminate against players of a certain "background," which appears to be implying that White coaches don't want to help or coach people of color.
Could you expand on this please? It sounds like you're saying that only White coaches don't teach you to be good people, which I don't think you mean. And it also sounds like you're saying that White coaches discriminate against players of a certain "background," which appears to be implying that White coaches don't want to help or coach people of color.
Thanks for the post and I apologize if my post was taken as downplaying the accomplishments of my fellow people of color. If you are a Black Man/Women I can almost guarantee you my skin is probably as dark if not darker than yours. And I have the fast-twitch bagging skills to prove it from having to always fend off Black Jokes from my own people growing up. Now back to basketball. I wasn't putting any coach down. I think Malik and Tom are great coaches however I do believe they tend to rely more on the talent and sometimes don't make adjustments when they need to. I should have included Saint Joes in the previous post and Salesian because their guards I felt were personally were more talented "athletically" than Mittys Guards. When I say that it means I believe they could show up at the park and play good old fashion park basketball. And that leads me to this. A lot of the kids from Urban communities grow up playing in the park with their brothers, cousins etc. They are more hungry in a sense. It doesn't mean they are better overall players but those teams I mentioned at the guard level appear more athletic. As much as I like Mitty and root for Mitty I'm not going to sit here and tell you that their athleticism at Guard is better than St Joes, Salesian, BOD, and St Marys Stockton. That was my point. For a big City, San Jose isn't exactly the Mecca when it comes to athletics. Case in point football. When was the last time a San Jose team made it to the State Open Division championship game? When was the last time a San Jose boys basketball team made it to the State Open Division championship? that I truly don't know.
And @ankleassassin
Maybe Urban Asian isn't the right term. But Asians that show up at the Parks and play and talk trash with the best in the park is what I am referring to. People that can play basketball without a system in place. That has been Mitty's Achilles heel if you ask me. It happened against Salesian in the Playoffs Haleys senior year. I honestly believed the 3 losses Mitty had against La Jolla Country Day, Riverdale Baptist, and Mater Dei last season prepped Mitty for the State Championship and they would have overcome but we will never know. But I'm sure we can agree it would have been a great game. Mitty has some talented players on their team and some of the best players in Norcal. But it doesn't mean they are better athletically, maybe fundamentally. But being a great athlete and great basketball player doesn't always go hand in hand.
Last edited:
I think you missed my point but it is quit understandable. Institutional racism is not personal. All races teach how to be a good person. That interpretation reminds me of Kapernick kneeling. Completely misunderstood by certain demographics. I’ve seen White coaches like the old St Mary’s coach take the challenge and be an incredible role model for minorities. Although he is far and few, my point isn’t about what Whites can’t or won’t do. My point is Malik is working with a specific demographic that most coaches run from. I admire the Salesian coach and Malik more than any other coaches in the Bay because they aren’t choosing some super privilege kids that have $50 an hour trainers at birth. They can coach anyone. I hate Whitesplaining things.
I completely understand what you are saying. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. As far as changing and making adjustments during the game, this again is my point. When Kerr didn’t have Durant he made more adjustments during the game. He was considered this incredible coach because he made adjustments. When he got Durant he would never make any adjustments. The Warriors best quarter was the 3rd. Not because of adjustments but because the more skilled and superior team would maniacally wake up. Is Kerr not a good coach since he waited for the players to turn it around instead of switching defenses and making other adjustments on offense? No. Kerr was still a good coach because he made things simple for Durant. Institutional racism is assuming that a Black coach didn’t even think of any adjustments and assumed that he didn’t know any. But then on a bigger scale I expect people over 40 to be trapped in this old reality. But we do agree on a lot.
can you explain what happened with kerr this year then? minus the obvious. would malik be in the same boat without the athletes?
We don’t know. But we do know a lot of people who don’t look like him will assume that he can’t. It reminds me of Ty Lue winning the chip and losing out to 2-3 coaches who are assumed to be winners without doing what the winners actually did. I hear the same argument for Black quarterbacks, Black NFL coaches, Black GM’s and Black basketball coaches. They are not thinkers. They need players that help them limit their thinking. Again. Thank God for young Whites Under 30 changing systemic racism.
If a person isn't privy to a full look inside the program (practice plan/development/game plan/in-game coaching to name a few), it is hard to accurate gauge who is a good coach and who is subpar.
Basically, we all take our glimpses of these different coaches and extrapolate out a conclusion from it. Sometimes that works, but other times it is more a guess than a statement
Basically, we all take our glimpses of these different coaches and extrapolate out a conclusion from it. Sometimes that works, but other times it is more a guess than a statement
I don't know where my post we agreed on went but thanks for capturing it. Maybe I deleted it by mistake or I said a coaches name I shouldn't have. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited:
Haven't done the research but I believe Brea-Olinda is about a successful a team as there has been in the state. Remember, the open has only been with us a few years. Use to be a Division IV team might be the best in the State (Piedmont with the Paris Twins).
In fact usually, Division I was our weakest division up here.
Just a thought about O'Dowd and Salesian: Both are private schools that require a significant amount of tuition. Granted, some of the top players get financial aid (or a complete free ride) but I'm not sure how much different that demographic is from, say, Heritage or American.
And though I will concede that I would have to make serious adjustments to coach at an Oakland school, I don't think that's true of all coaches in the suburbs. To say that only urban coaches can coach everyone assumes a) they would do just as well dealing with suburban parents and the other different issues that come with that area, and b) urban coaches are somehow inherently superior to coaches who work in suburban leagues.
And though I will concede that I would have to make serious adjustments to coach at an Oakland school, I don't think that's true of all coaches in the suburbs. To say that only urban coaches can coach everyone assumes a) they would do just as well dealing with suburban parents and the other different issues that come with that area, and b) urban coaches are somehow inherently superior to coaches who work in suburban leagues.
I think anyone in Norcal would rather have Salesian and BOD kids than any kids. They're athletic and physical. I do agree with others that say that they don't get enough credit because they have very athletic kids, but lets be real. The kids in their programs don't really get better between their freshman and senior year. You've gotta be kidding me to say that Malik or Coach P get kids that other coaches would run away from. I swear some of views on this board cease to amaze me...
I would disagree. I think that coaches coach who they want to coach or at least who can afford them. I’m sorry that my words catch you off guard. I hear these kinds of things from most Black coaches in the Bay Area. These words catching you off guard says more about how many minorities are sharing their honest opinions with you. So I guess you’re welcome.
I just disagreed with only one part of of the initial statement saying "...I admire the Salesian coach and Malik more than any other coaches in the Bay because they aren’t choosing some super privilege kids that have $50 an hour trainers at birth". It's hard to say who and who doesn't get the 50 dollar an hour trainer. I've seen kids from BOD and Salesian use the same trainers as the super privileged kids you speak about. I'm sure some kids at Saleian or BOD can't afford the full tuition, but there are kids on both teams (and other upper echelon private teams) that can afford these. Just because BOD is in East Oakland and and Salesian is in Richmond doesn't mean you should generalize and say they don't come from privileged backgrounds (of course I'm talking economically)...I know kids on both teams (right now) who's parents are welcome off financially. and for what's it's worth, people of color (like myself) HATE being called minorities these days...it's 2020 people!
Why do we hate being called minorities? It's 40Million of us African Americans and almost 200 Million White Americans, we are a minority. You're right it is 2020 so be sure you speak for yourself. Being called a minority doesn't bother me.
African American's aren't the only "minorities" out there..minorities are an outdated term, just like other terms I do not wish to say on this board. I"m not gonna sit here and give you a sociology lesson, but the term minority, reinforces racist thinking and is offensive. it ignores status and sub-status and and doesn't give due justice to the contributions of other people of color. If you want to consider yourself a minority (inferior or with less power) that's your choice. But more and more leaders of color (black leaders too) have changed their thinking.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-what-you-need-know-about-this-new-identity/
You don't have to give me a sociology lesson because I'm a college educated Black Man, Person if Color, Minority however a person chooses to address. I briefly skimmed through that article and no where did I see it make an explicit reference to th term minority no longer being used. What it did make an explicit reference to was the term person of color which I do use as well. My suggestion to is that if you prefer a term over the next set the protocol by using term you prefer in place of term minority. Leading by example often goes further than trying to ridicule someone especially when that ridicule is biased with personal ideaologies and not factual actionable items.
As a matter of fact the article you posted makes reference to the use of People Of Color not always being preferred not the word Minority. Which one is it?
Excerpt from the article below
The limits of a “people of color” identity
I sometimes hear complaints about “people of color,” including grumbles from nonwhites themselves. In-depth interviews with 25 “people of color” during 2019 brought such comments as, “Not everyone likes this label,” “it flattens differences” and “it simplifies complexities.” But, of course, such characterizations are correct about any identities
----------------------------
End of Except
The article states that it POC was introduced in the sixties and provided a different way to group said groups. I'm missing where the article says nobody wants to be called a minority ant longer. Please provide the Sociology lesson and enlighten me on where I missed that In the article @Norcal_Fan
You don't like the term I get it. If you prefer to use People of Color I get that also as I use both. But we gotta lead by example not ridicule. I've been A black man for almost 50 years now, I'm very tight with Mexican and a few Asians as well. I'm tight with Whites also but we are talking people of color. I have a very college educated circle as well as non college educated circle and no one has said hey we don't use the term minority any more. Just because there are additional terms don't mean one is played out. Again if you have a personal preference I get it but the term if the article you posted didn't concur with your statement.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
