Volleyball club- recap and thoughts

[Anonymous]

FPYCparent wrote:Not quite sure this fits, but last night I watched a HS varsity scrimmage between an LCPS school and an FCPS school. There were some high-level plays during the match, given that this was just the first scrimmage of the season. My kid, who knows players on each team, said that one team has three D1 commits (and maybe a fourth) ... two from Metro and two from Paramount. That team also had at least from player from Blue Ridge and another from VA Juniors. That's an impressive amount of talent within the boundaries of a single high school. The other team had at least one VA Elite and two VAJRS players (maybe more).

Admittedly, I'm kinda jealous knowing that my kid's public school doesn't have that much talent within its boundaries.

agree, some schools just have great players that come together in one school. For FCPS it's Langley last year and probably this year, although I did hear one of the girls from Langley is going to IMG. That being said, there are instances of parents "moving" so that their dd can play with certain players. The private school circuit is even more interesting b/c programs are built off of recruiting/bringing in key players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

FPYCparent wrote:Not quite sure this fits, but last night I watched a HS varsity scrimmage between an LCPS school and an FCPS school. There were some high-level plays during the match, given that this was just the first scrimmage of the season. My kid, who knows players on each team, said that one team has three D1 commits (and maybe a fourth) ... two from Metro and two from Paramount. That team also had at least from player from Blue Ridge and another from VA Juniors. That's an impressive amount of talent within the boundaries of a single high school. The other team had at least one VA Elite and two VAJRS players (maybe more).

Admittedly, I'm kinda jealous knowing that my kid's public school doesn't have that much talent within its boundaries.

agree, some schools just have great players that come together in one school. For FCPS it's Langley last year and probably this year, although I did hear one of the girls from Langley is going to IMG. That being said, there are instances of parents "moving" so that their dd can play with certain players. The private school circuit is even more interesting b/c programs are built off of recruiting/bringing in key players.

Seems like there is a little shake up on the private school circuit underway. Flint Hill's ability to draw 3-4 of the best local volleyball players from every class year seems to be less the in the past. I've seen mention that the school changed something in the admissions process that is making it tougher for kids to be admitted primarily on the basis of sports. Also, although I understand the current coach is quite good, he might not have the same recruiting draw as the last few coaches they've had. GDS and Bullis have been able to assemble some good players in the last few years and this could be the first year in a long time that Flint Hill doesn't win the ISL or the VISAA state champs

[Anonymous]

When did school start for Flint Hill? There is a 2024-2025 roster on the website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro was never really interested in the younger age groups, not many clubs were. The interest in volleyball has grown so much in the last 5 years, even at the younger ages, it makes sense for clubs to expand to include 11U and 12U.

Metro wasn’t interested until Paramount started it. MVSA had been doing it for years, but Metro never cared because they knew they could always poach those kids when they got to U14-U15, and because they never viewed MVSA as a threat. Now they care because Paramount is doing it (and doing it so well)

Lol…I have no dog is this fight. I don’t expect Metro to stop poaching U14-U15 players, even though they now have U12 Travel.

What does "poaching" mean? If a player chooses to leave one club to go to Metro (or any other club) isn't that their (and their parents) decision?

I really don’t have a problem with it. Metro has to do what is necessary to have the best players and players and their families have to do what they think is best for them. College recruiting for the class 2026 (rising juniors) just opened this summer and Metro already posted 4 of their players have verbally committed to D1 schools (3 to P5 conferences).

Of those 4, how many played for Metro since U13? The answer is zero. 3 joined at U15, one at U16. One of those players was already in the NTDP system before she joined Metro. Those players were developed elsewhere. Metro’s two best players on their 18s team last season were developed elsewhere (VAJRS and Paeamount). I’m not saying this is unique to metro (paramount also has commits who don’t join paramount until later), but based on the success Paramount’s younger teams have had at U11 and U12, they’re clearly developing players, whereas Metro’s modus operandi is to take the best talent that was developed elsewhere.

Poaching doesn’t imply that those players are involuntarily being lured to Metro. What it implies is metro has to poach the best talent that has been cultivated and developed at other clubs, because they lack the ability to develop their younger players.

The rising Metro 17s actually have 7 commitments and it's probably their most impressive list of schools for a single Metro team to date (Tennessee, Baylor, Kentucky, Marquette, Long Beach, Syracuse, and American). Of those 7, 2 have been playing for Metro since 13s or younger.

The rising Metro 18s have 11 D1 commits, and 5 have been playing for Metro since at list 13s. That doesn't include the 4 class of 2025 players who played for 18 Travel last year that are all committed to D1, but all of whom played for other clubs prior to Metro. I do find it interesting that people always give credit to VAJRs for developing the PSU commit even though she only played there 2 seasons. She started at Metro on the 12 Central team and played 13 and 14s for MVSA.

As you noted, Paramount also regularly lures away better players from other clubs. The roster of this past season's Paramount 17s only included 3 players that had been with the club since their 14s season. Prior to the 2021-22 season, Paramount's youngest team was 14s. I think the numbers are pretty similar for most of the VA Elite and VAJRs teams as well. Even at less competitive clubs there are always players coming and going for a variety of reasons. I think the better clubs get criticized for "poaching" because when a mid-tier team who has a good season loses a good player to Metro or Paramount, the players/families left behind feel betrayed because the team isn't as good as it was the prior season. In my opinion, families should be evaluating every season what club best fits what they are looking for. If last year's club continues to meet your needs, then great. If not, look for a better fit, but be realistic about where your DD might be best suited. There is a lot of competition for spots on better teams (esp. Metro and Paramount), so be plan to tryout for several options.

It will be interesting to see whether the introduction of younger teams at Paramount and Metro changes things. I tend to doubt that there are going to be significant numbers of players that go all the way from 11-12s to recruitment age. A reality in volleyball (and other sports) is that the best players at 11-13s are usually not the best players at 17 and 18. It's often the players who are more physically mature who standout on the younger teams and it is really common for the players who were the stars at 12s to be passed by as the peers catch up in maturity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When did school start for Flint Hill? There is a 2024-2025 roster on the website.

Seems like what's posted there is far more players than could actually be on the team. Perhaps it's glitch or maybe everyone who is trying out for the team has been added temporarily.

[Anonymous]

We're very new to all of this and I have so many questions. My daughter is a freshmen and just made JV as first string setter. She tried out for club last year and didn't make any teams, so she tried being a practice player (it was a bad experience so won't name the club).

Club fees and demands will be a stretch for us and hard on the rest of the family, but we'll do it if we have to.

I guess my questions are: What's the end game? She's 5'6 but probably won't grow too much more. Does she have a future if she doesn't do club? Does it make sense to do it just so she can make Varsity? If she makes Varsity, what are the actual chances she will be recruited? Does the fact that she made JV as a freshmen mean she's ahead of the game and stands a better chance of making Varsity if she continues to practice and train? Would private lessons once a week be a substitute for club (because somehow that's cheaper). Does a regional club "count" as much as a club that competes nationally?

She's extremely dedicated. We bought one of those set net things and she goes out there and practices for hours at a time when she's not at team practice.

Any insight will behelpful. Thank you in advance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did school start for Flint Hill? There is a 2024-2025 roster on the website.

Seems like what's posted there is far more players than could actually be on the team. Perhaps it's glitch or maybe everyone who is trying out for the team has been added temporarily.

I also thought it’s too many players for varsity. Maybe the list includes both varsity and JV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're very new to all of this and I have so many questions. My daughter is a freshmen and just made JV as first string setter. She tried out for club last year and didn't make any teams, so she tried being a practice player (it was a bad experience so won't name the club).

Club fees and demands will be a stretch for us and hard on the rest of the family, but we'll do it if we have to.

I guess my questions are: What's the end game? She's 5'6 but probably won't grow too much more. Does she have a future if she doesn't do club? Does it make sense to do it just so she can make Varsity? If she makes Varsity, what are the actual chances she will be recruited? Does the fact that she made JV as a freshmen mean she's ahead of the game and stands a better chance of making Varsity if she continues to practice and train? Would private lessons once a week be a substitute for club (because somehow that's cheaper). Does a regional club "count" as much as a club that competes nationally?

She's extremely dedicated. We bought one of those set net things and she goes out there and practices for hours at a time when she's not at team practice.

Any insight will behelpful. Thank you in advance!

The end game is really up to you. Volleyball has all the usual learning experiences that come along with team sports and those apply whether she's playing only on the HS team or for a high level club team. And while height is important for volleyball, being 5'6" doesn't exclude her from playing in college if she's athletic and motivated Obviously she's not likely to get a full ride to Texas or Nebraska as a shorter setter but there are many shorter setters playing in college, especially in D2 and D3. As to whether a regional club teams "counts" as much as a more competitive team that plays nationally, again it depends on what the goal is. A regional club team would probably allow her to improve enough to make varsity in a future year, but might not be enough to get her recruited to play in college. Volleyball is a sport where most of the recruiting happens from club teams. If the club team doesn't go to big tournaments with teams from all over the country, it will be more difficult for her to be seen by college coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're very new to all of this and I have so many questions. My daughter is a freshmen and just made JV as first string setter. She tried out for club last year and didn't make any teams, so she tried being a practice player (it was a bad experience so won't name the club).

Club fees and demands will be a stretch for us and hard on the rest of the family, but we'll do it if we have to.

I guess my questions are: What's the end game? She's 5'6 but probably won't grow too much more. Does she have a future if she doesn't do club? Does it make sense to do it just so she can make Varsity? If she makes Varsity, what are the actual chances she will be recruited? Does the fact that she made JV as a freshmen mean she's ahead of the game and stands a better chance of making Varsity if she continues to practice and train? Would private lessons once a week be a substitute for club (because somehow that's cheaper). Does a regional club "count" as much as a club that competes nationally?

She's extremely dedicated. We bought one of those set net things and she goes out there and practices for hours at a time when she's not at team practice.

Any insight will behelpful. Thank you in advance!

The end game is really up to you. Volleyball has all the usual learning experiences that come along with team sports and those apply whether she's playing only on the HS team or for a high level club team. And while height is important for volleyball, being 5'6" doesn't exclude her from playing in college if she's athletic and motivated Obviously she's not likely to get a full ride to Texas or Nebraska as a shorter setter but there are many shorter setters playing in college, especially in D2 and D3. As to whether a regional club teams "counts" as much as a more competitive team that plays nationally, again it depends on what the goal is. A regional club team would probably allow her to improve enough to make varsity in a future year, but might not be enough to get her recruited to play in college. Volleyball is a sport where most of the recruiting happens from club teams. If the club team doesn't go to big tournaments with teams from all over the country, it will be more difficult for her to be seen by college coaches.

I like the analysis above. I would just add that making JV is not a big deal. It only means that your DD is ahead of the curve this year in your particular HS. It might be the case that club volleyball is not very popular in your school district. Which means your DD will have a good chance to stay on the team, then move on to the varsity team. Or, your HS doesn't have a lot of club players this year. Some players will likely start playing club after the JV season is over. Your DD may be cut at any point (next JV season or any V season) if she doesn't stay competitive. You need to read the room and figure out whether the other girls try harder or take it slow. If the end game is being recruited in college, participation on the HS team is likely not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro was never really interested in the younger age groups, not many clubs were. The interest in volleyball has grown so much in the last 5 years, even at the younger ages, it makes sense for clubs to expand to include 11U and 12U.

Metro wasn’t interested until Paramount started it. MVSA had been doing it for years, but Metro never cared because they knew they could always poach those kids when they got to U14-U15, and because they never viewed MVSA as a threat. Now they care because Paramount is doing it (and doing it so well)

Lol…I have no dog is this fight. I don’t expect Metro to stop poaching U14-U15 players, even though they now have U12 Travel.

What does "poaching" mean? If a player chooses to leave one club to go to Metro (or any other club) isn't that their (and their parents) decision?

I really don’t have a problem with it. Metro has to do what is necessary to have the best players and players and their families have to do what they think is best for them. College recruiting for the class 2026 (rising juniors) just opened this summer and Metro already posted 4 of their players have verbally committed to D1 schools (3 to P5 conferences).

Of those 4, how many played for Metro since U13? The answer is zero. 3 joined at U15, one at U16. One of those players was already in the NTDP system before she joined Metro. Those players were developed elsewhere. Metro’s two best players on their 18s team last season were developed elsewhere (VAJRS and Paeamount). I’m not saying this is unique to metro (paramount also has commits who don’t join paramount until later), but based on the success Paramount’s younger teams have had at U11 and U12, they’re clearly developing players, whereas Metro’s modus operandi is to take the best talent that was developed elsewhere.

Poaching doesn’t imply that those players are involuntarily being lured to Metro. What it implies is metro has to poach the best talent that has been cultivated and developed at other clubs, because they lack the ability to develop their younger players.

The rising Metro 17s actually have 7 commitments and it's probably their most impressive list of schools for a single Metro team to date (Tennessee, Baylor, Kentucky, Marquette, Long Beach, Syracuse, and American). Of those 7, 2 have been playing for Metro since 13s or younger.

The rising Metro 18s have 11 D1 commits, and 5 have been playing for Metro since at list 13s. That doesn't include the 4 class of 2025 players who played for 18 Travel last year that are all committed to D1, but all of whom played for other clubs prior to Metro. I do find it interesting that people always give credit to VAJRs for developing the PSU commit even though she only played there 2 seasons. She started at Metro on the 12 Central team and played 13 and 14s for MVSA.

As you noted, Paramount also regularly lures away better players from other clubs. The roster of this past season's Paramount 17s only included 3 players that had been with the club since their 14s season. Prior to the 2021-22 season, Paramount's youngest team was 14s. I think the numbers are pretty similar for most of the VA Elite and VAJRs teams as well. Even at less competitive clubs there are always players coming and going for a variety of reasons. I think the better clubs get criticized for "poaching" because when a mid-tier team who has a good season loses a good player to Metro or Paramount, the players/families left behind feel betrayed because the team isn't as good as it was the prior season. In my opinion, families should be evaluating every season what club best fits what they are looking for. If last year's club continues to meet your needs, then great. If not, look for a better fit, but be realistic about where your DD might be best suited. There is a lot of competition for spots on better teams (esp. Metro and Paramount), so be plan to tryout for several options.

It will be interesting to see whether the introduction of younger teams at Paramount and Metro changes things. I tend to doubt that there are going to be significant numbers of players that go all the way from 11-12s to recruitment age. A reality in volleyball (and other sports) is that the best players at 11-13s are usually not the best players at 17 and 18. It's often the players who are more physically mature who standout on the younger teams and it is really common for the players who were the stars at 12s to be passed by as the peers catch up in maturity.

While I agree with you on some points that players maturity make a big role in their play levels at 17-18, earlier good training for setters and liberos at age 12-14 plays more important role in setters than physical maturity do at later years. That's obviously showing on Metro teams these years that they have very average setters because of lacking good early development, but they do have much better hitters and middles (because of height).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro was never really interested in the younger age groups, not many clubs were. The interest in volleyball has grown so much in the last 5 years, even at the younger ages, it makes sense for clubs to expand to include 11U and 12U.

Metro wasn’t interested until Paramount started it. MVSA had been doing it for years, but Metro never cared because they knew they could always poach those kids when they got to U14-U15, and because they never viewed MVSA as a threat. Now they care because Paramount is doing it (and doing it so well)

Lol…I have no dog is this fight. I don’t expect Metro to stop poaching U14-U15 players, even though they now have U12 Travel.

What does "poaching" mean? If a player chooses to leave one club to go to Metro (or any other club) isn't that their (and their parents) decision?

I really don’t have a problem with it. Metro has to do what is necessary to have the best players and players and their families have to do what they think is best for them. College recruiting for the class 2026 (rising juniors) just opened this summer and Metro already posted 4 of their players have verbally committed to D1 schools (3 to P5 conferences).

Of those 4, how many played for Metro since U13? The answer is zero. 3 joined at U15, one at U16. One of those players was already in the NTDP system before she joined Metro. Those players were developed elsewhere. Metro’s two best players on their 18s team last season were developed elsewhere (VAJRS and Paeamount). I’m not saying this is unique to metro (paramount also has commits who don’t join paramount until later), but based on the success Paramount’s younger teams have had at U11 and U12, they’re clearly developing players, whereas Metro’s modus operandi is to take the best talent that was developed elsewhere.

Poaching doesn’t imply that those players are involuntarily being lured to Metro. What it implies is metro has to poach the best talent that has been cultivated and developed at other clubs, because they lack the ability to develop their younger players.

The rising Metro 17s actually have 7 commitments and it's probably their most impressive list of schools for a single Metro team to date (Tennessee, Baylor, Kentucky, Marquette, Long Beach, Syracuse, and American). Of those 7, 2 have been playing for Metro since 13s or younger.

The rising Metro 18s have 11 D1 commits, and 5 have been playing for Metro since at list 13s. That doesn't include the 4 class of 2025 players who played for 18 Travel last year that are all committed to D1, but all of whom played for other clubs prior to Metro. I do find it interesting that people always give credit to VAJRs for developing the PSU commit even though she only played there 2 seasons. She started at Metro on the 12 Central team and played 13 and 14s for MVSA.

As you noted, Paramount also regularly lures away better players from other clubs. The roster of this past season's Paramount 17s only included 3 players that had been with the club since their 14s season. Prior to the 2021-22 season, Paramount's youngest team was 14s. I think the numbers are pretty similar for most of the VA Elite and VAJRs teams as well. Even at less competitive clubs there are always players coming and going for a variety of reasons. I think the better clubs get criticized for "poaching" because when a mid-tier team who has a good season loses a good player to Metro or Paramount, the players/families left behind feel betrayed because the team isn't as good as it was the prior season. In my opinion, families should be evaluating every season what club best fits what they are looking for. If last year's club continues to meet your needs, then great. If not, look for a better fit, but be realistic about where your DD might be best suited. There is a lot of competition for spots on better teams (esp. Metro and Paramount), so be plan to tryout for several options.

It will be interesting to see whether the introduction of younger teams at Paramount and Metro changes things. I tend to doubt that there are going to be significant numbers of players that go all the way from 11-12s to recruitment age. A reality in volleyball (and other sports) is that the best players at 11-13s are usually not the best players at 17 and 18. It's often the players who are more physically mature who standout on the younger teams and it is really common for the players who were the stars at 12s to be passed by as the peers catch up in maturity.

While I agree with you on some points that players maturity make a big role in their play levels at 17-18, earlier good training for setters and liberos at age 12-14 plays more important role in setters than physical maturity do at later years. That's obviously showing on Metro teams these years that they have very average setters because of lacking good early development, but they do have much better hitters and middles (because of height).

PP here. I agree that developing skills in younger players is incredibly important, particularly for setters and liberos. My point about maturity is that other than the girls that are easy to predict are going to be tall (i.e., already above the curve and have tall parents), identifying which 11 year old is going to have the physical capability to become an elite player can be tough. It takes a combination of both good training and the right physical/mental traits to be a great volleyball player. The Metro 12 Travel coach that was announced was an outstanding collegiate setter and seems to have a personality that will be good with younger kids, so hopefully she will do a good job teaching fundamentals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro was never really interested in the younger age groups, not many clubs were. The interest in volleyball has grown so much in the last 5 years, even at the younger ages, it makes sense for clubs to expand to include 11U and 12U.

Metro wasn’t interested until Paramount started it. MVSA had been doing it for years, but Metro never cared because they knew they could always poach those kids when they got to U14-U15, and because they never viewed MVSA as a threat. Now they care because Paramount is doing it (and doing it so well)

Lol…I have no dog is this fight. I don’t expect Metro to stop poaching U14-U15 players, even though they now have U12 Travel.

What does "poaching" mean? If a player chooses to leave one club to go to Metro (or any other club) isn't that their (and their parents) decision?

I really don’t have a problem with it. Metro has to do what is necessary to have the best players and players and their families have to do what they think is best for them. College recruiting for the class 2026 (rising juniors) just opened this summer and Metro already posted 4 of their players have verbally committed to D1 schools (3 to P5 conferences).

Of those 4, how many played for Metro since U13? The answer is zero. 3 joined at U15, one at U16. One of those players was already in the NTDP system before she joined Metro. Those players were developed elsewhere. Metro’s two best players on their 18s team last season were developed elsewhere (VAJRS and Paeamount). I’m not saying this is unique to metro (paramount also has commits who don’t join paramount until later), but based on the success Paramount’s younger teams have had at U11 and U12, they’re clearly developing players, whereas Metro’s modus operandi is to take the best talent that was developed elsewhere.

Poaching doesn’t imply that those players are involuntarily being lured to Metro. What it implies is metro has to poach the best talent that has been cultivated and developed at other clubs, because they lack the ability to develop their younger players.

The rising Metro 17s actually have 7 commitments and it's probably their most impressive list of schools for a single Metro team to date (Tennessee, Baylor, Kentucky, Marquette, Long Beach, Syracuse, and American). Of those 7, 2 have been playing for Metro since 13s or younger.

The rising Metro 18s have 11 D1 commits, and 5 have been playing for Metro since at list 13s. That doesn't include the 4 class of 2025 players who played for 18 Travel last year that are all committed to D1, but all of whom played for other clubs prior to Metro. I do find it interesting that people always give credit to VAJRs for developing the PSU commit even though she only played there 2 seasons. She started at Metro on the 12 Central team and played 13 and 14s for MVSA.

As you noted, Paramount also regularly lures away better players from other clubs. The roster of this past season's Paramount 17s only included 3 players that had been with the club since their 14s season. Prior to the 2021-22 season, Paramount's youngest team was 14s. I think the numbers are pretty similar for most of the VA Elite and VAJRs teams as well. Even at less competitive clubs there are always players coming and going for a variety of reasons. I think the better clubs get criticized for "poaching" because when a mid-tier team who has a good season loses a good player to Metro or Paramount, the players/families left behind feel betrayed because the team isn't as good as it was the prior season. In my opinion, families should be evaluating every season what club best fits what they are looking for. If last year's club continues to meet your needs, then great. If not, look for a better fit, but be realistic about where your DD might be best suited. There is a lot of competition for spots on better teams (esp. Metro and Paramount), so be plan to tryout for several options.

It will be interesting to see whether the introduction of younger teams at Paramount and Metro changes things. I tend to doubt that there are going to be significant numbers of players that go all the way from 11-12s to recruitment age. A reality in volleyball (and other sports) is that the best players at 11-13s are usually not the best players at 17 and 18. It's often the players who are more physically mature who standout on the younger teams and it is really common for the players who were the stars at 12s to be passed by as the peers catch up in maturity.

While I agree with you on some points that players maturity make a big role in their play levels at 17-18, earlier good training for setters and liberos at age 12-14 plays more important role in setters than physical maturity do at later years. That's obviously showing on Metro teams these years that they have very average setters because of lacking good early development, but they do have much better hitters and middles (because of height).

PP here. I agree that developing skills in younger players is incredibly important, particularly for setters and liberos. My point about maturity is that other than the girls that are easy to predict are going to be tall (i.e., already above the curve and have tall parents), identifying which 11 year old is going to have the physical capability to become an elite player can be tough. It takes a combination of both good training and the right physical/mental traits to be a great volleyball player. The Metro 12 Travel coach that was announced was an outstanding collegiate setter and seems to have a personality that will be good with younger kids, so hopefully she will do a good job teaching fundamentals.

Finger crossed and I doubt given Metro's culture. Metro 13t coaches were both d1 setters and one even played in uswnt. Look at their setters now ! They were so good whenthey join metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro was never really interested in the younger age groups, not many clubs were. The interest in volleyball has grown so much in the last 5 years, even at the younger ages, it makes sense for clubs to expand to include 11U and 12U.

Metro wasn’t interested until Paramount started it. MVSA had been doing it for years, but Metro never cared because they knew they could always poach those kids when they got to U14-U15, and because they never viewed MVSA as a threat. Now they care because Paramount is doing it (and doing it so well)

Lol…I have no dog is this fight. I don’t expect Metro to stop poaching U14-U15 players, even though they now have U12 Travel.

What does "poaching" mean? If a player chooses to leave one club to go to Metro (or any other club) isn't that their (and their parents) decision?

I really don’t have a problem with it. Metro has to do what is necessary to have the best players and players and their families have to do what they think is best for them. College recruiting for the class 2026 (rising juniors) just opened this summer and Metro already posted 4 of their players have verbally committed to D1 schools (3 to P5 conferences).

Of those 4, how many played for Metro since U13? The answer is zero. 3 joined at U15, one at U16. One of those players was already in the NTDP system before she joined Metro. Those players were developed elsewhere. Metro’s two best players on their 18s team last season were developed elsewhere (VAJRS and Paeamount). I’m not saying this is unique to metro (paramount also has commits who don’t join paramount until later), but based on the success Paramount’s younger teams have had at U11 and U12, they’re clearly developing players, whereas Metro’s modus operandi is to take the best talent that was developed elsewhere.

Poaching doesn’t imply that those players are involuntarily being lured to Metro. What it implies is metro has to poach the best talent that has been cultivated and developed at other clubs, because they lack the ability to develop their younger players.

The rising Metro 17s actually have 7 commitments and it's probably their most impressive list of schools for a single Metro team to date (Tennessee, Baylor, Kentucky, Marquette, Long Beach, Syracuse, and American). Of those 7, 2 have been playing for Metro since 13s or younger.

The rising Metro 18s have 11 D1 commits, and 5 have been playing for Metro since at list 13s. That doesn't include the 4 class of 2025 players who played for 18 Travel last year that are all committed to D1, but all of whom played for other clubs prior to Metro. I do find it interesting that people always give credit to VAJRs for developing the PSU commit even though she only played there 2 seasons. She started at Metro on the 12 Central team and played 13 and 14s for MVSA.

As you noted, Paramount also regularly lures away better players from other clubs. The roster of this past season's Paramount 17s only included 3 players that had been with the club since their 14s season. Prior to the 2021-22 season, Paramount's youngest team was 14s. I think the numbers are pretty similar for most of the VA Elite and VAJRs teams as well. Even at less competitive clubs there are always players coming and going for a variety of reasons. I think the better clubs get criticized for "poaching" because when a mid-tier team who has a good season loses a good player to Metro or Paramount, the players/families left behind feel betrayed because the team isn't as good as it was the prior season. In my opinion, families should be evaluating every season what club best fits what they are looking for. If last year's club continues to meet your needs, then great. If not, look for a better fit, but be realistic about where your DD might be best suited. There is a lot of competition for spots on better teams (esp. Metro and Paramount), so be plan to tryout for several options.

It will be interesting to see whether the introduction of younger teams at Paramount and Metro changes things. I tend to doubt that there are going to be significant numbers of players that go all the way from 11-12s to recruitment age. A reality in volleyball (and other sports) is that the best players at 11-13s are usually not the best players at 17 and 18. It's often the players who are more physically mature who standout on the younger teams and it is really common for the players who were the stars at 12s to be passed by as the peers catch up in maturity.

silly question from a new parent....These Metro teams you mention are the North, South or Central? Is one typically the strongest or is it purely demographic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro was never really interested in the younger age groups, not many clubs were. The interest in volleyball has grown so much in the last 5 years, even at the younger ages, it makes sense for clubs to expand to include 11U and 12U.

Metro wasn’t interested until Paramount started it. MVSA had been doing it for years, but Metro never cared because they knew they could always poach those kids when they got to U14-U15, and because they never viewed MVSA as a threat. Now they care because Paramount is doing it (and doing it so well)

Lol…I have no dog is this fight. I don’t expect Metro to stop poaching U14-U15 players, even though they now have U12 Travel.

What does "poaching" mean? If a player chooses to leave one club to go to Metro (or any other club) isn't that their (and their parents) decision?

I really don’t have a problem with it. Metro has to do what is necessary to have the best players and players and their families have to do what they think is best for them. College recruiting for the class 2026 (rising juniors) just opened this summer and Metro already posted 4 of their players have verbally committed to D1 schools (3 to P5 conferences).

Of those 4, how many played for Metro since U13? The answer is zero. 3 joined at U15, one at U16. One of those players was already in the NTDP system before she joined Metro. Those players were developed elsewhere. Metro’s two best players on their 18s team last season were developed elsewhere (VAJRS and Paeamount). I’m not saying this is unique to metro (paramount also has commits who don’t join paramount until later), but based on the success Paramount’s younger teams have had at U11 and U12, they’re clearly developing players, whereas Metro’s modus operandi is to take the best talent that was developed elsewhere.

Poaching doesn’t imply that those players are involuntarily being lured to Metro. What it implies is metro has to poach the best talent that has been cultivated and developed at other clubs, because they lack the ability to develop their younger players.

The rising Metro 17s actually have 7 commitments and it's probably their most impressive list of schools for a single Metro team to date (Tennessee, Baylor, Kentucky, Marquette, Long Beach, Syracuse, and American). Of those 7, 2 have been playing for Metro since 13s or younger.

The rising Metro 18s have 11 D1 commits, and 5 have been playing for Metro since at list 13s. That doesn't include the 4 class of 2025 players who played for 18 Travel last year that are all committed to D1, but all of whom played for other clubs prior to Metro. I do find it interesting that people always give credit to VAJRs for developing the PSU commit even though she only played there 2 seasons. She started at Metro on the 12 Central team and played 13 and 14s for MVSA.

As you noted, Paramount also regularly lures away better players from other clubs. The roster of this past season's Paramount 17s only included 3 players that had been with the club since their 14s season. Prior to the 2021-22 season, Paramount's youngest team was 14s. I think the numbers are pretty similar for most of the VA Elite and VAJRs teams as well. Even at less competitive clubs there are always players coming and going for a variety of reasons. I think the better clubs get criticized for "poaching" because when a mid-tier team who has a good season loses a good player to Metro or Paramount, the players/families left behind feel betrayed because the team isn't as good as it was the prior season. In my opinion, families should be evaluating every season what club best fits what they are looking for. If last year's club continues to meet your needs, then great. If not, look for a better fit, but be realistic about where your DD might be best suited. There is a lot of competition for spots on better teams (esp. Metro and Paramount), so be plan to tryout for several options.

It will be interesting to see whether the introduction of younger teams at Paramount and Metro changes things. I tend to doubt that there are going to be significant numbers of players that go all the way from 11-12s to recruitment age. A reality in volleyball (and other sports) is that the best players at 11-13s are usually not the best players at 17 and 18. It's often the players who are more physically mature who standout on the younger teams and it is really common for the players who were the stars at 12s to be passed by as the peers catch up in maturity.

silly question from a new parent....These Metro teams you mention are the North, South or Central? Is one typically the strongest or is it purely demographic?

Metro Travel are their top teams by design and have generally been the strongest teams in the region in recent memory. Amongst the Metro regional teams (North, East, South, and Central) the North teams are typically the strongest. Of the rest, it’s generally a toss up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro was never really interested in the younger age groups, not many clubs were. The interest in volleyball has grown so much in the last 5 years, even at the younger ages, it makes sense for clubs to expand to include 11U and 12U.

Metro wasn’t interested until Paramount started it. MVSA had been doing it for years, but Metro never cared because they knew they could always poach those kids when they got to U14-U15, and because they never viewed MVSA as a threat. Now they care because Paramount is doing it (and doing it so well)

Lol…I have no dog is this fight. I don’t expect Metro to stop poaching U14-U15 players, even though they now have U12 Travel.

What does "poaching" mean? If a player chooses to leave one club to go to Metro (or any other club) isn't that their (and their parents) decision?

I really don’t have a problem with it. Metro has to do what is necessary to have the best players and players and their families have to do what they think is best for them. College recruiting for the class 2026 (rising juniors) just opened this summer and Metro already posted 4 of their players have verbally committed to D1 schools (3 to P5 conferences).

Of those 4, how many played for Metro since U13? The answer is zero. 3 joined at U15, one at U16. One of those players was already in the NTDP system before she joined Metro. Those players were developed elsewhere. Metro’s two best players on their 18s team last season were developed elsewhere (VAJRS and Paeamount). I’m not saying this is unique to metro (paramount also has commits who don’t join paramount until later), but based on the success Paramount’s younger teams have had at U11 and U12, they’re clearly developing players, whereas Metro’s modus operandi is to take the best talent that was developed elsewhere.

Poaching doesn’t imply that those players are involuntarily being lured to Metro. What it implies is metro has to poach the best talent that has been cultivated and developed at other clubs, because they lack the ability to develop their younger players.

The rising Metro 17s actually have 7 commitments and it's probably their most impressive list of schools for a single Metro team to date (Tennessee, Baylor, Kentucky, Marquette, Long Beach, Syracuse, and American). Of those 7, 2 have been playing for Metro since 13s or younger.

The rising Metro 18s have 11 D1 commits, and 5 have been playing for Metro since at list 13s. That doesn't include the 4 class of 2025 players who played for 18 Travel last year that are all committed to D1, but all of whom played for other clubs prior to Metro. I do find it interesting that people always give credit to VAJRs for developing the PSU commit even though she only played there 2 seasons. She started at Metro on the 12 Central team and played 13 and 14s for MVSA.

As you noted, Paramount also regularly lures away better players from other clubs. The roster of this past season's Paramount 17s only included 3 players that had been with the club since their 14s season. Prior to the 2021-22 season, Paramount's youngest team was 14s. I think the numbers are pretty similar for most of the VA Elite and VAJRs teams as well. Even at less competitive clubs there are always players coming and going for a variety of reasons. I think the better clubs get criticized for "poaching" because when a mid-tier team who has a good season loses a good player to Metro or Paramount, the players/families left behind feel betrayed because the team isn't as good as it was the prior season. In my opinion, families should be evaluating every season what club best fits what they are looking for. If last year's club continues to meet your needs, then great. If not, look for a better fit, but be realistic about where your DD might be best suited. There is a lot of competition for spots on better teams (esp. Metro and Paramount), so be plan to tryout for several options.

It will be interesting to see whether the introduction of younger teams at Paramount and Metro changes things. I tend to doubt that there are going to be significant numbers of players that go all the way from 11-12s to recruitment age. A reality in volleyball (and other sports) is that the best players at 11-13s are usually not the best players at 17 and 18. It's often the players who are more physically mature who standout on the younger teams and it is really common for the players who were the stars at 12s to be passed by as the peers catch up in maturity.

While I agree with you on some points that players maturity make a big role in their play levels at 17-18, earlier good training for setters and liberos at age 12-14 plays more important role in setters than physical maturity do at later years. That's obviously showing on Metro teams these years that they have very average setters because of lacking good early development, but they do have much better hitters and middles (because of height).

PP here. I agree that developing skills in younger players is incredibly important, particularly for setters and liberos. My point about maturity is that other than the girls that are easy to predict are going to be tall (i.e., already above the curve and have tall parents), identifying which 11 year old is going to have the physical capability to become an elite player can be tough. It takes a combination of both good training and the right physical/mental traits to be a great volleyball player. The Metro 12 Travel coach that was announced was an outstanding collegiate setter and seems to have a personality that will be good with younger kids, so hopefully she will do a good job teaching fundamentals.

Most parents are ignorant of the NCAA rules. Whenever a D1 NCAA coach coaches a club team, they will not really be that team’s coach due to NCAA rules regarding evaluation days. They will hardly ever be there. They are coach in title only; they are a figurehead.

Per NCAA rules, all D1 coaches are allowed a maximum of 80 evaluation/recruiting days. Every day a coach interacts with a club player (e.g., coaching them at a practice or at a tournament, that counts as an evaluation day). Every time a coach goes to a tournament to evaluate players, that counts as an evaluation day. Remember, they only get 80 of these a year. So every time this GW coach who is “coaching” Metro 12 T coaches a practice, that takes away one evaluation day. These evaluation days are immensely valuable to these coaches and they go by really quickly (most tournaments are 3 days, and these coaches also like to go watch club practices of potential recruits, which also counts as an evaluation day). Do you really think this GW coach is going to waste a significant # of her evaluation days to coach a bunch of 12 year olds? Whoever is the assistant coach will really be the head coach of that team.