Pactc- You seem to forget that guys have more of an ego attachment with athletics than guys do. That's what swag is a manifestation off. I have seen girls team being destroyed on the score board and still playing and giving it their all. I am talking 50 point leads in the first half. You would seldom if ever see that happen with boys teams. Athletics are more closely with guys identities. Now I am sure there are some girls and some guys that go against the stereotype but in general they seem to hold.
The future: Carondelet in D4?
- Thread starter ClayK
- Start date
Will talk, (That ego could also be viewed as confidence)
I am sure you know I'm not the politically correct type of guy. Actually very far from it, as I dont kiss ass,follow crowds,norms,act, talk, or behave in a way just to try to fit in to be popular, or accepted by man for that matter. As I said this as all my comments are just my opinion. Man,or should I say human can take it or leave it. My opinion's are just based on my experience and my perception. And I did say each circumstance should be considered. But as a generality I have noticed certain patterns of behavior in my experience. So that is "my" report. Everyone else is entitled to their own report and their own opinion based on their own perception or viewpoint.
Or they can just agree and fit in with the crowd. Like the homie E-40 said "we all have choices" and opinions. Reserve the right to express yours.
Last edited:
I agree on the second part of your comment most of all. I also agree generally speaking girls mature a bit faster. But IMO, generally speaking, it is easier to take a girls confidence in sports than a boys confidence. Probably because girls typically run a bit more off emotions. But of course that is "my" scientific report and my opinion.
Last edited:
No Pinewood didn't go on to win the Norcal Open. That is because they really weren't anywhere close to as good, deep, or talented a team as SMS or many if any other Norcal Open teams that year. They were able to catch a better team who was unprepared for the surprise and didn't make the right adjustment. And they (Pinewood) got hot and rode that wave out (which lasted one game shooting unconscious from 3 point range). You know how reliable a 3 point shot can be especially in high school age kids. Sometimes the 3's fall other times they don't. But that didn't take away from the fact that a quality well coached and well prepared team pulled off an upset. They could have just taken the attitude I have witnessed too many poorly led teams do. And that is to give up and give in before trying to give their best. Things like that motivate philosophies and books like "Win Anyway". Because some just take on a totally different attitude than others do. And some fear people and things they should not fear. I say if it's not life threatening than it shouldn't be given much attention. And it certainly shouldn't be feared.
Last edited:
My thoughts on this competitive equity format. It has definitely helped the SF Section / AAA in this past girls volleyball season (yes I know this is a basketball forum, I'll get to this in a second). Up until this season, the SFS girls volleyball teams had not won a single CIF NorCal state playoff game in Division 1 (since it's usually been Lowell, Lincoln or Washington playing).
In Division 2, University (traditionally a Division 5 team) was defeated by Lowell. Lowell battled Carlmont (#1 seed) to 5 sets before falling. Lincoln, seeded #4 in Division 3 is in the state final.
I heard the smaller schools were complaining about getting moved up (Lincoln beat several smaller schools). But SF Waldorf was placed in Division 4 (they only have 150 students) and got all the way to the NorCal Final before losing. So it's not purely about enrollment as some years, you are going to have talent.
From a basketball standpoint, I think the SF AAA and OAL girls teams (which haven't traditionally done well in state) will benefit the most. Even if Lowell / Lincoln girls go to NorCals with a gaudy record, they will likely be seeded down to Division 2 or 3. If the AAA winner barely cracks .500 overall, they may well be seeded even lower. Either way, the AAA team should get a more competitive matchup than against the bulk of the Division 1 powers.
The WCAL / BCL teams may get bumped higher due to the relative strength of their leagues (though not sure how BCL ranks in terms of girls basketball, boys basketball is solid).
In Division 2, University (traditionally a Division 5 team) was defeated by Lowell. Lowell battled Carlmont (#1 seed) to 5 sets before falling. Lincoln, seeded #4 in Division 3 is in the state final.
I heard the smaller schools were complaining about getting moved up (Lincoln beat several smaller schools). But SF Waldorf was placed in Division 4 (they only have 150 students) and got all the way to the NorCal Final before losing. So it's not purely about enrollment as some years, you are going to have talent.
From a basketball standpoint, I think the SF AAA and OAL girls teams (which haven't traditionally done well in state) will benefit the most. Even if Lowell / Lincoln girls go to NorCals with a gaudy record, they will likely be seeded down to Division 2 or 3. If the AAA winner barely cracks .500 overall, they may well be seeded even lower. Either way, the AAA team should get a more competitive matchup than against the bulk of the Division 1 powers.
The WCAL / BCL teams may get bumped higher due to the relative strength of their leagues (though not sure how BCL ranks in terms of girls basketball, boys basketball is solid).
And there's nothing like postseason success to generate interest in a sport ...
I think that it can only help girls' basketball as a whole -- and girls' basketball needs help -- if more teams are involved in postseason, instead of the usual suspects winning everything by playing in different NorCal divisions.
I think that it can only help girls' basketball as a whole -- and girls' basketball needs help -- if more teams are involved in postseason, instead of the usual suspects winning everything by playing in different NorCal divisions.
And now for more volleyball. Presentation went 20-21 overall this year. They went 0-15 vs WCAL teams. They also just won the CIF Division IV state title. Yep. Competitive equity. Wow.
And don't forget that big pizza party over at Round Table. Cheese sticks for everyone!
yea, I wasn't really kidding on the other thread when I questioned the motivation of the pres basketball team to win a league game this year. Last year, if competitive equity were in place, they would have probably been in the same shoes as the volleyball team this year. I thought it was bad enough that the bball team got to celebrate with an all school assembly last year for winning ccs.. this year's development makes me cringe...
Will talk, (That ego could also be viewed as confidence)
Sorry I waited so long to respond but I first got distracted and then just forgot.
I think that how we interpret the term Ego is where our disconnect is. My perception of Ego differentiates from yours, in this respect, so that would obviously hinder our ability to communicate our perceptions in this case.
Now you agree with Clay's assessment that girls tend to mature faster than boys and I am also on board with that. The level of maturity in boys is the crux of my perspective of the role that ego plays in this case. While the definition of the term ego might have both a positive and negative connotation, I tend to believe it to generally to be negative, but for this argument it makes sense to keep it simple so I won't go into much depth to explain my reasons. So lets stick to your statement of Ego also being interpreted as confidence as our operating parameter.
The term ego is usually defined as a persons self image. So yes Ego could be interpreted as a source from which a form of confidence originates. The key is whether it is confidence based on reality or illusion ( in this case usually an agenda driven rationalization) . This is where Clays statement about maturity comes into play and also the crux of how society creates different pressures for boys and girls. That is why I stated that a boys identities were more closely related to athletics and thus a creating more pressure for proving their worth though that medium. It does seem that the present emphasis on womens athletics is tweeking that dynamic to some degree.
A persons true sense of self requires objectivity and visa versa.
Our society tends to delay the maturation process of our young people. In respect to boys there are very few avenues to do so. In so called primitive societies, they had a ritual that once boys passed they were considered men and accepted into society as such. Our society has no such defining rituals. Guys spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to prove themselves mostly using self defined standards based on their own immature perspectives. Athletics was one form that society provided as proof of manhood. That is why boys are more likely invested in athletics in the formulation of their identities as men.
Girls are socially free'er to express emotions than guys, while guys are conditioned to not show them. This would tend to mask what is comparatively happening internally in respect to what they express outwardly. Guys tend to use repressed emotions as a " waterboy" type competitive motivation ( tackling fuel ). Now this might partially explain why guys tend to be more competitive in athletics than girls. It provides an emotional release for them. Now we also see that competitive fire in many girls but to a lesser degree. But egress into the area's that are more important to women and you will see some real competitive fire.
I think we all can agree guys and girls generally speaking are and do behave differently. Perhaps you summed that up better than I did, but the perceptions regarding that fact are closely related. I think most girls and guys deep down inside know what's up with regard to how confident they are. No one else knows an individual as well as the individual themselves. And swag whether real or just a front can build confidence and momentum. It can also take confidence and momentum from those who are already lacking a bit in the area. Again that is just my opinion based on my experience. Thanks for the feedback. I do like the way you present your points of view.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
As I have always said, you have to take each circumstance separately because there are exceptions. As noted "Win Anyway" is not about any absolutes. Because some boys have a little sugar in their tank and some girls a little extra testosterone and estrogen. And some children both girls and boys have been trained to be timid and fearful of things (like sports) IMO they should not fear. As we both agree " Players tend to adopt the confidence and personality of their coach". And leadership and accountability from the top can make all the difference in the world for young children building confidence and trying to figure it all out. Of course that is just my opinion.
Perhaps..........?
My guess is one would have to consider each and every circumstance. Because each child has many variables to take into account upon the study. There are different philosophies and different systems to consider. Different coaching styles. And the fact that some coaches are better than others. Then the parental backgrounds are different. Some train and/or play with and against boys, some don't. Children's personalities are different. Some have siblings, some don't. Belief systems can be very different.Team supporting cast are different. Many times politics can also get in the way. Then there is school tradition and success rate....... and the list goes on. That is why throwing out generalities can be questioned, and they are therefore based on the experiences observed by the person taking the survey at the time, under that particular circumstance. And no matter who or what firm is making the study it still is just an opinion based on that particular study. And the data present at that time. Because humans are changing rapidly. Some girls want to be boys, and some boys want to be girls, for a number of reasons.
Last edited:
