What's the benefit of Metro volleyball travel team?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Checked their recruitment and found quite a few players recruited to mid and lower ranking D1 colleges like towson, umd, hampton,lafayette etc, while other CHRVA clubs also send players to these D1 programs. Given the travel time (less school academic study time ) and cost , what's the benefit of sending kids to Metro? |
Anonymous
My DD enjoys playing volleyball (she is in a different club), but she cannot compete for a spot on a Metro travel team (height, skills, and drive being at the top of the list of reasons why). This is why I am not a Metro parent and I am unlikely to become one (I would not pay so much money for a Metro regional team). We've been to some Metro clinics and we also met the the girls in tournaments - they are absolutely amazing. If my daughter was taller, more driven, and generally better at volleyball, I could see a reason to join Metro: not necessarily for the recruitment opportunities, but to be in that challenging environment. I am not sure what travel time you have in mind: travel to practice or travel to tournaments? If the practice is too far, you may find a similarly challenging environment (and tournament participation) in other top teams of other clubs - you may consider those if they are closer to you. |
Anonymous
|
My daughter plays for a different club but it’s in VA. The cost is about the same and so is the practice time. She doesn’t play for Metro because 1. She likely would not make the travel team and 2. Practices are too far from our house if she did.
Time and cost are irrelevant because her less competitive club is the same time and cost. She is not concerned about college recruiting. She plays because she loves the sport. She looks at level of play and where we can reasonably drive to during rush hour when we decide/compromise on which clubs she will target for tryouts. |
Anonymous
Some reasons players want to play for Metro Travel: They have a strong history of recruiting. The level they play at, the scholarships they receive and the amount they play is variable, but they do get to play in college. Practices are really team competitions that can push players hard. Some players love the constant pressure this creates and thrive in it. They play a tough competition schedule against very good clubs. Saying "I play for Metro Travel" can be a big part of the personal identity of a player. It can be an even bigger status symbol for the parents, especially at the younger ages. There are counter arguments as well. You can get recruited from any club, as long as you have the talent and do the recruiting work. It is much easier to get on coaches radar than it was even five years ago. Also, you likely stop playing for Metro Travel if you aren't going to get recruited, or they stop taking you on a team if you aren't likely to be recruited. The practice approach can create a strong "me" vibe on their teams instead of a "we" focus. It absolutely influences the personal relationships between the players, especially if the players play the same position. And you typically have to supplement team practices with individual coaching to get focused skill improvement. Finally, the status of Metro Travel hasn't matched their performance recently. For example, Metro's performance at USAV nationals was at or below a number of other CHRVA teams and clubs. There are very good players who Metro Travel would love to have (and have made offers to) that have turned them down, and very good players who want to play for them. Its a personal decision. All the above only applies to Metro Travel. Metro Regional is not Metro travel and even though they are marketed as one club there is no correlation between the Metro name and the performance of their regional teams. There are lots of parents who think playing for a Metro Regional team gives them a better chance to make Travel, but based on discussions on this board there is little to no evidence that it is of any benefit (and some evidence that it may hurt because other clubs may do a better job at developing players). |
FPYCparent
Member Offline
Member Offline
My HS kid just finished a season on a top team at Paramount. This was her first season with the club. Hopefully, I can offer something objective. 
As far as CHRVA goes, Metro Travel and Paramount seem to perform the best across multiple age groups at the Open level for many years. As far as I am concerned, Open level play gets the most college coach eyeballs watching. In fact, a D-III school reached out to my kid after Big South back in April. My kid isn't even a starter, but she routinely gets on the court. Sure, it's not D-I (which my kid wants), but I think it shows the "reward" of playing for a club that consistently plays well in Open ... even if the club isn't a national powerhouse. Someone recent shared the ScholarshipStats website (https://scholarshipstats.com/volleyball for more info) in another thread. If those numbers are reasonably accurate, a rostered HS player has a 1.2% competing in women's volleyball at an NCAA D-I school. I don't think those numbers imply that those players are actually getting athletic scholarships of any amount. I have no problem believing that the percentage drops for those actually getting some athletic scholarship funding. Unless you are willing to move somewhere else in the country (where youth volleyball is stronger across multiple clubs and high schools in the same region) ... and your kid wants to play high-level volleyball in college, she would be best served by playing Metro Travel or Paramount. It's not impossible to get that level of exposure at another CHRVA club, but ... for now, it's almost built into the experience at those two clubs. |
Anonymous
There is a lot of confirmation bias that happens with these types of discussions, so I don't think its straightforward that if "your kid wants to play high-level volleyball in college, she would be best served by playing Metro Travel or Paramount." A few details: 1) Of 35 D1 commits (Prepdig) last year, more than half come from Metro Travel and Paramount clubs. They do have the highest concentration of D1 recruits on their U17 & U18 teams. But there are other clubs that have D1 players and at least this year a not insignificant number of those are committed to college programs that are equal to or above the average schools that Metro Travel or Paramount players play for, either competitively or academically. 2) Both clubs add players to U17/U18 teams who are already well recruited at U16 at a different clubs. There are 3-4 examples in the 2025 class where switching clubs might not have helped their recruiting outcome at all -- the players already were deep in discussions with high D1 programs following their U16 club year. 3) Very few of the U18 players at either of those clubs started playing with the club at U14 or younger. For the class of 2024 only 5 of 14 Metro Travel players played U14 for them. For Paramount it was 0 of 13. 4) Related to #3, while those clubs remind you all the time through social media about the recruits that were successful at those clubs, you never hear about those who weren't. By U18 as many as 50-60 players have played on their teams, with 3-6 players leaving leaving after each year. There can even be in-year turnover (5 leaving one of the teams this season). If you make one of their teams before U16 you a much more likely to not play for them by U17/U18 than you are to play for them. This has been discussed a lot in other threads and there is an argument that other clubs do a better job of developing young talent than either of those clubs, especially at the U11-U14 ages. 5) Finally, recruiting years for D1 are generally limited to the U16-U17 club years. Unless they've had multiple kids go through the recruiting process then families likely have very limited info. Or they may not be aware that another player at their age group at different club has dozens of coaches interested, even though they aren't playing at the open level at every national qualifier. Even within a club or a team with lots of recruiting success their info can be limited info because of the level of competitiveness, or a desire for privacy or a concern that talking about it will cause conflict within their team. These facts don't mean the clubs are bad or performing poorly or anything negative. By U18 you can absolutely say their players will play in college, a lot of them D1 and few of them high D1. That is a great accomplishment. We need more of that in CHRVA. We also need to remember that getting a spot on a Power 5 big name D1 school volleyball roster is incredibly difficult, with just a few hundred players in the country getting that chance each year. But when it comes to choosing a club there's a lot of marketing and little information. On this board discussions are often "Club A"=Good and "Club B"=Bad. Discussions like these help families make a more informed choice. As a PP pointed out, when it comes to choosing clubs each family needs to make the decision that serves them best and not assume that a certain club is the best place for everyone -- even if they want to play D1. |
Anonymous
| I think if a player is athletic and confident, she can be recruited to these D1 programs regardless club she play. Just need to make sure to join a travel team and play in Open or usa division level in the qualifiers. Good players not playing in metro travel tends to be more confident, better skilled and leadership. Like another parent mentioned, now it is very easy to be exposed due to recruiting tools and apps. Again 14-18 years old had so may meaningful things to develop at this age. Pick your own best, not the "best" of others. |
Anonymous
| In today's world there are too many fake information that parents need do their own work. Many clubs try to mix things together to make their club looks good. Like club X keep advertising they have D1 recruits and posting on their web social network with their D3 players like last week 68 assists from a community college player. 😀 |
Anonymous
Agree. Don't believe their marketing, and don't believe the "tier lists" that a guaranteed to show up on this board once tryouts starts. Do your homework, talk to the club director and to the coach and to families that have club experience. Find the club that fits your goals and objectives. There was a poster in another thread that had a great point, "Last year I had the same approach as the one you outlined: my daughter deserves to be in one of the best clubs in the area. The difference is: you asked for advice and I didn't. I feel like the outcome will be different: we struggled and stressed as a result, you have more realistic expectations and a better approach" Its great advice. FOMO in club volleyball is huge, especially for parents. But there are great clubs with great coaches who drive great experiences throughout the DMV. You'll be much happier and more successful if you find a club that fits your needs. |
Anonymous
I'm not completely sure what fake information a PP is referring to, but it is true that there are players who don't come to Metro until 16s or 17s who have played elsewhere. And there are lots examples of that from other clubs too. At the end of the day, volleyball clubs are businesses and marketing is part of running a business, meaning that clubs are going to paint recruiting results in the best light possible. It seems accurate to say that a player who plays for Club ABC today is committed to XYZ University, even if they played for one or more clubs prior to coming to Club ABC. I think it's likely that a majority of players who commit to play collegiate volleyball have played for multiple clubs and gotten coaching in HS, clinics, private lessons, etc that have all contributed to their development. There are very few players who start with a club at 10 or 11 and are still playing for the same club at 18. Should clubs be listing all of that out on their Instagram posts announcing when a player who currently plays for their club is committed? From a numbers perspective, I think it's pretty safe to say that Metro Travel teams have the most players who go on to play collegiately of CHRVA clubs, even if they all haven't been with the club since 13s. Using the class of 2025 as an example, since they are further along in the process than the class of 2026, Metro shows they have 15 of their class of 2025 Travel players committed to D1 programs, which includes 3 players going to what are currently top 25 programs. I've tried to estimate the numbers of commitments for the class of 2025 players and their current CHRVA clubs , but I'm sure I've missed some (estimates based on https://volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/94554/2025-ncaa-d1-indoor-commits and club social media accounts): Metro Travel - 15 D1 VA Elite - 4 D1 and 6 D3 Paramount - 3 D1 and 1 D3 MDJRs - 3 D1, 1 D2, and 2 D3 Columbia - 2 D1, 1 D2, and 1 D3 Blue Ridge - 1 D1, 2 D2, and some D1 beach commits Liberty Elite - 1 D1 and 2 D2 VA Juniors - 1 D1 and 1 D3 MVSA - 1 D1 Chesapeake Elite - 1 D1 In terms of the quality of collegiate programs that CHRVA players are recruited to, Metro consistently places more players in power conference programs than other CHRVA clubs. From the class of 2025 data represented above, there are 6 total players going to Power 4 conference schools. Of those, 5 are from Metro Travel and 1 is from Paramount. The reality is that being recruited to play D1 volleyball at any level is difficult. Others have cited this data (https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds) which shows the odds of making a D1 women's volleyball program for a HS girls' player at about 83:1. From a numbers perspective, that's harder than all other women's sports except tennis and wrestling. Whether it's worthwhile to play for a D1 team that isn't likely to be competing for a national championship is a separate question from what are the benefits of one club over another. There are of course downsides to playing for Metro Travel, Paramount, or similar clubs. They tend to take more players per team and playing time is not guaranteed meaning some players don't see the court much during tournaments. And the practices and training are very intense. If your DD isn't driven to work hard or is sensitive to blunt feedback/some yelling, then it's probably not a good fit. Nevertheless, if your DD wants to play collegiate volleyball, Metro Travel is the most straightforward path amongst CHRVA clubs. Of course many players are recruited to play in college from other clubs and if one of them works better for you, then that's great. Getting recruited to play in college is more about the individual player and less about the club. That said, playing for certain clubs can get a player more visibility to college coaches and clubs that have more experience getting players recruited have more relationships with college programs and more knowledge about how to manage the process. If your DD is not interested in playing collegiate volleyball, then I would probably stay away from Metro Travel and many of the other clubs listed above (or at least their top teams). Playing for a team that goes to multiple qualifiers and travels a lot is expensive and means missing school. If your objective for volleyball is the life lessons and other benefits of team sports, but not playing in college, there are lots of clubs that can offer that without all the downsides. And be realistic. AES shows there were around 140 CHRVA teams in the 14s, 15s, and 16s age groups last season. With a hypothetical average of 12 players per team, that's ~1,680 girls playing within CHRVA for each of those age groups. The most players that can be on a USAV club roster is 15 so the competition is pretty intense to play for certain top teams. Get to know a few different clubs and come up with a strategy for what teams to tryout for. It's ok to aim high, but have a backup plan if that doesn't work out. |
Anonymous
|
Saw this from another discussion, what's wrong with Metro recently given so many talents in their team?
2024 gjnc result:national and open 12 N 38th (48)Renaissance 12 BLKDE (CH) (38) 13 N 3rd (48) MDJRS 13 Elite (CH) (4) 13 N 29th (48)Metro 13 Travel (CH) (29) 14 N 23rd (48)Paramount 14 Maureen(CH) (23) 14 N 43rd (48)MVSA 14 Force (CH) (43) 14 O 22nd (36)Metro 14 Travel (CH) (22) 15 N 45th (48)MVSA 15 Charge (CH) (45) 15 N 11th (48)Metro 15 Travel (CH) (11) 15 O 29th (36)Paramount 15 Nick (CH) (30) 16 N 5th (48) Paramount 16 Danny (CH) (7) 16 O 33rd (36)Metro 16 Travel (CH) (34) 17 N 13th (48)VA Elite 17's (CH) (16) 17 N 33rd (48)Metro 17 Travel (CH) (33) 3 players selected as all tournament players and none from Metro.(2 pvc, 1 levbc) For the 23-24 Metro 17T, seems Sylva gave up them and will take 17T in 24-25 season instead of her routine coaching of 18T: the easiest age group. Anything happened? |
Anonymous
Such a Metro homer. At least try to be somewhat objective. |
Anonymous
Don’t you hate it when the facts don’t fit your chosen narrative? What’s your rebuttal? That Metro somehow attracts the best local talent and that’s why they have the best recruiting results, but if Paramount or some other club had the same talent they would do better? Where’s the evidence? If that were true, why does the same thing happen year after year? If other clubs were truly providing better training or better preparing athletes for college volleyball, then the market would have spoken and Metro would have been dethroned years ago. Paramount has been around for 9 seasons. They are no longer some scrappy start up, turning the Bad News Bears into open qualifiers. They are a well established club attracting top players from the region. In an area as large as the DMV, there are far too many great players for one club to have all of the most talented players at every age group. And that’s not meant to disparage Paramount - they have without a doubt become the 2nd most successful CHRVA club. But the idea that they are not able to recruit top tier athletes because Metro takes them all is simply not true anymore (if it ever was). Or maybe your argument is that Metro doesn’t do as well at nationals as they should? Sure they didn’t do great this year, but they had 3 teams in Open divisions and in the past 5 years they’ve had 7 top 10 finishes at USAV Nationals, including two top 5 finishes in Open. What CHRVA club has better results over the long term? Or maybe you choose to ignore Metro’s ranking by the system used to invite teams to Triple Crown? https://tcspub.blob.core.windows.net/usclubrankings/vb/2024%20Club%20Rankings.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://tcspub.blob.core.windows.net/usclubrankings/vb/2024%20Club%20Rankings.pdf. It’s great that Paramount is moving up the list, but they’ve still got a ways to go to surpass Metro. I can’t think of another CHRVA club beyond those two that would be even close to breaking into the top 100. While I may be a Metro homer, at least my opinions are supported by actual facts. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
I don't think anything that was said is disparaging to Paramount. No one is disputing that they have built themselves into the second best CHRVA club in a relatively short amount of time nor was the argument made that Metro has developed into what it is only since Silvia took over. And MVSA and MDJRs have existed for decades - if the time a club has been in existence is a primary factor in their current level of success why aren't those clubs winning more today? So yes, Paramount has had a rapid rise to the top but why does that have to take away from Metro accomplishes? One thing I do take issue with is the narrative that gets repeated over and over on these forums of Paramount having all their success with lesser athletes than Metro attracts and that's the only reason that Metro has more success. That is not only untrue, it's also disrespectful to Paramount's athletes. With respect to Paramount's 5th place finish in 18 Open in 2023, that was a great finish. No one is taking anything away from that. But if we're going down the path of cherry picking particular results from past seasons, I could cite many results in which Metro has outperformed Paramount, but that wouldn't accomplish anything. Can't we celebrate the successes of all our local athletes rather than only the successes of the ones who play for our preferred club? I sincerely respect what Maureen and family have built, but the obsession with trying to one up Metro all the time is tiresome. There's room for more than one successful club in CHRVA. Regions like North Texas and Southern California have many clubs that are earning open bids and have a legitimate shot at winning an open national championship every year. CHRVA isn't at that level yet, but the way we get there isn't by tearing down Metro so that Paramount can take the top spot. Having more competitive clubs in the region is better for everyone. |