Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the outsider perspective, it appears both dislike each other. I’d say Paramount despises Metro significantly more and wants to be good like them. Look at their social media, always trying to one up Metro. It comes off as very desperate and jealous.

Both clubs have a mutual respect for one another. Are there feelings of jealousy? Yes. Is there a sense of desperation? No. Will some players switch teams next season? Perhaps.

This is part of the competition.

No one respects Paramount except for the people that justify the owners behavior.

Good grief, what "behavior" are you even referring to? Lots of lore, and from what I know, both clubs have intense coaches who show it in intense matches.

Truth.

I agree it is true that there are intense coaches at both clubs.

On the other hand, I don’t think the “rivalry” goes both ways. It kind of reminds of something I heard the UMD coach say in an interview a few years ago - he was asked about rivalries in the Big 10 and he said UMD’s rival in volleyball was Penn State which struck me as funny. UMD might see Penn State as a rival, but I don’t think many people affiliated with Penn State volleyball would say UMD was a rival. Similarly, I suspect folks associated with Paramount might say Metro is their rival, but I don’t know that Metro would say the same.

For years, Paramount has been carefully wording their social media posts with achievements that they are the “Only CHRVA club” to do X or Y. While usually true, these posts are often so narrowly defined that anyone in the know understands they are a thinly veiled attempt at trying to create the impression that Paramount is a more successful club than Metro. Metro social media posts tend to just focus on the achievements and not trying to frame it in some comparison to other CHRVA clubs.

I know there are some people that take issue with Metro highlighting commitments of current Metro players that haven’t been with the club for their whole club volleyball career, but that mostly seems like bitterness about Metro being able to attract a significant number of the top local players, which often means they came from other clubs.

I agree that Paramount awkward social media posts show some level of insecurity. They are definitely trying hard to position themselves as more successful than Metro, which can get hilarious. On the other hand, I understand that they have to motivate their own players and try their best to recruit other top players. If they simply accept that they are the second best club in the region, their top players might want to move on and play for the top club in the region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the outsider perspective, it appears both dislike each other. I’d say Paramount despises Metro significantly more and wants to be good like them. Look at their social media, always trying to one up Metro. It comes off as very desperate and jealous.

Both clubs have a mutual respect for one another. Are there feelings of jealousy? Yes. Is there a sense of desperation? No. Will some players switch teams next season? Perhaps.

This is part of the competition.

No one respects Paramount except for the people that justify the owners behavior.

Good grief, what "behavior" are you even referring to? Lots of lore, and from what I know, both clubs have intense coaches who show it in intense matches.

Truth.

I agree it is true that there are intense coaches at both clubs.

On the other hand, I don’t think the “rivalry” goes both ways. It kind of reminds of something I heard the UMD coach say in an interview a few years ago - he was asked about rivalries in the Big 10 and he said UMD’s rival in volleyball was Penn State which struck me as funny. UMD might see Penn State as a rival, but I don’t think many people affiliated with Penn State volleyball would say UMD was a rival. Similarly, I suspect folks associated with Paramount might say Metro is their rival, but I don’t know that Metro would say the same.

For years, Paramount has been carefully wording their social media posts with achievements that they are the “Only CHRVA club” to do X or Y. While usually true, these posts are often so narrowly defined that anyone in the know understands they are a thinly veiled attempt at trying to create the impression that Paramount is a more successful club than Metro. Metro social media posts tend to just focus on the achievements and not trying to frame it in some comparison to other CHRVA clubs.

I know there are some people that take issue with Metro highlighting commitments of current Metro players that haven’t been with the club for their whole club volleyball career, but that mostly seems like bitterness about Metro being able to attract a significant number of the top local players, which often means they came from other clubs.

I agree that Paramount awkward social media posts show some level of insecurity. They are definitely trying hard to position themselves as more successful than Metro, which can get hilarious. On the other hand, I understand that they have to motivate their own players and try their best to recruit other top players. If they simply accept that they are the second best club in the region, their top players might want to move on and play for the top club in the region.

We’re in a huge metro area, so there’s no real reason to think only one club gets to occupy the “top” spot. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, it’s pretty common to have multiple top-tier clubs in the same area.

And specifically with Metro vs Paramount, when their top teams play each other, those matches are often coin flips, high-level, competitive, and not clearly dominated by one side. Anyone who has actually watched them go head to head knows it is not some clear hierarchy. In any given year, one of them may have more wins or more bids, but there is often context behind that which is not obvious, like injuries. In a market this big, multiple clubs can be elite at the same time. The level of play between Metro and Paramount already shows that, so there is no need to try to manufacture a hierarchy on top of it.

That is why the whole “only CHRVA club to do X or Y” framing feels forced and unnecessary. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, you do not really see clubs leaning that hard into that kind of messaging in their rivalries. That is the change I would look for and hope to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the outsider perspective, it appears both dislike each other. I’d say Paramount despises Metro significantly more and wants to be good like them. Look at their social media, always trying to one up Metro. It comes off as very desperate and jealous.

Both clubs have a mutual respect for one another. Are there feelings of jealousy? Yes. Is there a sense of desperation? No. Will some players switch teams next season? Perhaps.

This is part of the competition.

No one respects Paramount except for the people that justify the owners behavior.

Good grief, what "behavior" are you even referring to? Lots of lore, and from what I know, both clubs have intense coaches who show it in intense matches.

Truth.

I agree it is true that there are intense coaches at both clubs.

On the other hand, I don’t think the “rivalry” goes both ways. It kind of reminds of something I heard the UMD coach say in an interview a few years ago - he was asked about rivalries in the Big 10 and he said UMD’s rival in volleyball was Penn State which struck me as funny. UMD might see Penn State as a rival, but I don’t think many people affiliated with Penn State volleyball would say UMD was a rival. Similarly, I suspect folks associated with Paramount might say Metro is their rival, but I don’t know that Metro would say the same.

For years, Paramount has been carefully wording their social media posts with achievements that they are the “Only CHRVA club” to do X or Y. While usually true, these posts are often so narrowly defined that anyone in the know understands they are a thinly veiled attempt at trying to create the impression that Paramount is a more successful club than Metro. Metro social media posts tend to just focus on the achievements and not trying to frame it in some comparison to other CHRVA clubs.

I know there are some people that take issue with Metro highlighting commitments of current Metro players that haven’t been with the club for their whole club volleyball career, but that mostly seems like bitterness about Metro being able to attract a significant number of the top local players, which often means they came from other clubs.

I agree that Paramount awkward social media posts show some level of insecurity. They are definitely trying hard to position themselves as more successful than Metro, which can get hilarious. On the other hand, I understand that they have to motivate their own players and try their best to recruit other top players. If they simply accept that they are the second best club in the region, their top players might want to move on and play for the top club in the region.

We’re in a huge metro area, so there’s no real reason to think only one club gets to occupy the “top” spot. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, it’s pretty common to have multiple top-tier clubs in the same area.

And specifically with Metro vs Paramount, when their top teams play each other, those matches are often coin flips, high-level, competitive, and not clearly dominated by one side. Anyone who has actually watched them go head to head knows it is not some clear hierarchy. In any given year, one of them may have more wins or more bids, but there is often context behind that which is not obvious, like injuries. In a market this big, multiple clubs can be elite at the same time. The level of play between Metro and Paramount already shows that, so there is no need to try to manufacture a hierarchy on top of it.

That is why the whole “only CHRVA club to do X or Y” framing feels forced and unnecessary. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, you do not really see clubs leaning that hard into that kind of messaging in their rivalries. That is the change I would look for and hope to see.

This might happen once Paramount stops acting so insecure. Just brag about your accomplishments without trying to "clarify" that whatever they achieved nobody else ever achieved in the whole CHRVA history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the outsider perspective, it appears both dislike each other. I’d say Paramount despises Metro significantly more and wants to be good like them. Look at their social media, always trying to one up Metro. It comes off as very desperate and jealous.

Both clubs have a mutual respect for one another. Are there feelings of jealousy? Yes. Is there a sense of desperation? No. Will some players switch teams next season? Perhaps.

This is part of the competition.

No one respects Paramount except for the people that justify the owners behavior.

Good grief, what "behavior" are you even referring to? Lots of lore, and from what I know, both clubs have intense coaches who show it in intense matches.

Truth.

I agree it is true that there are intense coaches at both clubs.

On the other hand, I don’t think the “rivalry” goes both ways. It kind of reminds of something I heard the UMD coach say in an interview a few years ago - he was asked about rivalries in the Big 10 and he said UMD’s rival in volleyball was Penn State which struck me as funny. UMD might see Penn State as a rival, but I don’t think many people affiliated with Penn State volleyball would say UMD was a rival. Similarly, I suspect folks associated with Paramount might say Metro is their rival, but I don’t know that Metro would say the same.

For years, Paramount has been carefully wording their social media posts with achievements that they are the “Only CHRVA club” to do X or Y. While usually true, these posts are often so narrowly defined that anyone in the know understands they are a thinly veiled attempt at trying to create the impression that Paramount is a more successful club than Metro. Metro social media posts tend to just focus on the achievements and not trying to frame it in some comparison to other CHRVA clubs.

I know there are some people that take issue with Metro highlighting commitments of current Metro players that haven’t been with the club for their whole club volleyball career, but that mostly seems like bitterness about Metro being able to attract a significant number of the top local players, which often means they came from other clubs.

I agree that Paramount awkward social media posts show some level of insecurity. They are definitely trying hard to position themselves as more successful than Metro, which can get hilarious. On the other hand, I understand that they have to motivate their own players and try their best to recruit other top players. If they simply accept that they are the second best club in the region, their top players might want to move on and play for the top club in the region.

We’re in a huge metro area, so there’s no real reason to think only one club gets to occupy the “top” spot. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, it’s pretty common to have multiple top-tier clubs in the same area.

And specifically with Metro vs Paramount, when their top teams play each other, those matches are often coin flips, high-level, competitive, and not clearly dominated by one side. Anyone who has actually watched them go head to head knows it is not some clear hierarchy. In any given year, one of them may have more wins or more bids, but there is often context behind that which is not obvious, like injuries. In a market this big, multiple clubs can be elite at the same time. The level of play between Metro and Paramount already shows that, so there is no need to try to manufacture a hierarchy on top of it.

That is why the whole “only CHRVA club to do X or Y” framing feels forced and unnecessary. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, you do not really see clubs leaning that hard into that kind of messaging in their rivalries. That is the change I would look for and hope to see.

Metro 15 Travel has enough there to top Paramount 15 Nick most if not all the matches this club season and possibly next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the outsider perspective, it appears both dislike each other. I’d say Paramount despises Metro significantly more and wants to be good like them. Look at their social media, always trying to one up Metro. It comes off as very desperate and jealous.

Both clubs have a mutual respect for one another. Are there feelings of jealousy? Yes. Is there a sense of desperation? No. Will some players switch teams next season? Perhaps.

This is part of the competition.

No one respects Paramount except for the people that justify the owners behavior.

Good grief, what "behavior" are you even referring to? Lots of lore, and from what I know, both clubs have intense coaches who show it in intense matches.

Truth.

I agree it is true that there are intense coaches at both clubs.

On the other hand, I don’t think the “rivalry” goes both ways. It kind of reminds of something I heard the UMD coach say in an interview a few years ago - he was asked about rivalries in the Big 10 and he said UMD’s rival in volleyball was Penn State which struck me as funny. UMD might see Penn State as a rival, but I don’t think many people affiliated with Penn State volleyball would say UMD was a rival. Similarly, I suspect folks associated with Paramount might say Metro is their rival, but I don’t know that Metro would say the same.

For years, Paramount has been carefully wording their social media posts with achievements that they are the “Only CHRVA club” to do X or Y. While usually true, these posts are often so narrowly defined that anyone in the know understands they are a thinly veiled attempt at trying to create the impression that Paramount is a more successful club than Metro. Metro social media posts tend to just focus on the achievements and not trying to frame it in some comparison to other CHRVA clubs.

I know there are some people that take issue with Metro highlighting commitments of current Metro players that haven’t been with the club for their whole club volleyball career, but that mostly seems like bitterness about Metro being able to attract a significant number of the top local players, which often means they came from other clubs.

I agree that Paramount awkward social media posts show some level of insecurity. They are definitely trying hard to position themselves as more successful than Metro, which can get hilarious. On the other hand, I understand that they have to motivate their own players and try their best to recruit other top players. If they simply accept that they are the second best club in the region, their top players might want to move on and play for the top club in the region.

We’re in a huge metro area, so there’s no real reason to think only one club gets to occupy the “top” spot. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, it’s pretty common to have multiple top-tier clubs in the same area.

And specifically with Metro vs Paramount, when their top teams play each other, those matches are often coin flips, high-level, competitive, and not clearly dominated by one side. Anyone who has actually watched them go head to head knows it is not some clear hierarchy. In any given year, one of them may have more wins or more bids, but there is often context behind that which is not obvious, like injuries. In a market this big, multiple clubs can be elite at the same time. The level of play between Metro and Paramount already shows that, so there is no need to try to manufacture a hierarchy on top of it.

That is why the whole “only CHRVA club to do X or Y” framing feels forced and unnecessary. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, you do not really see clubs leaning that hard into that kind of messaging in their rivalries. That is the change I would look for and hope to see.

Metro 15 Travel has enough there to top Paramount 15 Nick most if not all the matches this club season and possibly next.

Maybe. Or maybe not. That is kind of the point. One age group or one season does not suddenly establish some permanent hierarchy between clubs. Both clubs put up strong teams filled with highly talented players. Trying to turn every result into some definitive statement about the clubs overall is silly.

The bigger picture is that this area has enough talent for multiple elite clubs at the same time, which is actually a good thing for the players and for the level of volleyball here overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the outsider perspective, it appears both dislike each other. I’d say Paramount despises Metro significantly more and wants to be good like them. Look at their social media, always trying to one up Metro. It comes off as very desperate and jealous.

Both clubs have a mutual respect for one another. Are there feelings of jealousy? Yes. Is there a sense of desperation? No. Will some players switch teams next season? Perhaps.

This is part of the competition.

No one respects Paramount except for the people that justify the owners behavior.

Good grief, what "behavior" are you even referring to? Lots of lore, and from what I know, both clubs have intense coaches who show it in intense matches.

Truth.

I agree it is true that there are intense coaches at both clubs.

On the other hand, I don’t think the “rivalry” goes both ways. It kind of reminds of something I heard the UMD coach say in an interview a few years ago - he was asked about rivalries in the Big 10 and he said UMD’s rival in volleyball was Penn State which struck me as funny. UMD might see Penn State as a rival, but I don’t think many people affiliated with Penn State volleyball would say UMD was a rival. Similarly, I suspect folks associated with Paramount might say Metro is their rival, but I don’t know that Metro would say the same.

For years, Paramount has been carefully wording their social media posts with achievements that they are the “Only CHRVA club” to do X or Y. While usually true, these posts are often so narrowly defined that anyone in the know understands they are a thinly veiled attempt at trying to create the impression that Paramount is a more successful club than Metro. Metro social media posts tend to just focus on the achievements and not trying to frame it in some comparison to other CHRVA clubs.

I know there are some people that take issue with Metro highlighting commitments of current Metro players that haven’t been with the club for their whole club volleyball career, but that mostly seems like bitterness about Metro being able to attract a significant number of the top local players, which often means they came from other clubs.

I agree that Paramount awkward social media posts show some level of insecurity. They are definitely trying hard to position themselves as more successful than Metro, which can get hilarious. On the other hand, I understand that they have to motivate their own players and try their best to recruit other top players. If they simply accept that they are the second best club in the region, their top players might want to move on and play for the top club in the region.

We’re in a huge metro area, so there’s no real reason to think only one club gets to occupy the “top” spot. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, it’s pretty common to have multiple top-tier clubs in the same area.

And specifically with Metro vs Paramount, when their top teams play each other, those matches are often coin flips, high-level, competitive, and not clearly dominated by one side. Anyone who has actually watched them go head to head knows it is not some clear hierarchy. In any given year, one of them may have more wins or more bids, but there is often context behind that which is not obvious, like injuries. In a market this big, multiple clubs can be elite at the same time. The level of play between Metro and Paramount already shows that, so there is no need to try to manufacture a hierarchy on top of it.

That is why the whole “only CHRVA club to do X or Y” framing feels forced and unnecessary. If you look at other USA Volleyball regions, you do not really see clubs leaning that hard into that kind of messaging in their rivalries. That is the change I would look for and hope to see.

Metro 15 Travel has enough there to top Paramount 15 Nick most if not all the matches this club season and possibly next.

Maybe. Or maybe not. That is kind of the point. One age group or one season does not suddenly establish some permanent hierarchy between clubs. Both clubs put up strong teams filled with highly talented players. Trying to turn every result into some definitive statement about the clubs overall is silly.

The bigger picture is that this area has enough talent for multiple elite clubs at the same time, which is actually a good thing for the players and for the level of volleyball here overall.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Looking at rankings and open level bid achievements only two age groups are really a coin toss on who would win from u12-18 and those two might not even be that close. Metro clearly dominates overall this year. No skin in the game just checking and comparing results across 3 ranking systems.

[Anonymous]

What’s going on at Virginia Elite? Weren’t they one of the big DMV clubs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s going on at Virginia Elite? Weren’t they one of the big DMV clubs?

VA Elite has had some decent teams over the past few years and some talented players who went on to successful college careers, but I think their status as a top CHRVA club was more a product of marketing than results. For years they wouldn't come to CHRVA regionals and would always play in Open at qualifiers and mostly get destroyed. Then with no USAV bid, they would go to AAU Nationals and play in Open, and generally get beat up there too. To a certain extent, I think Paramount's rise has also hurt VA Elite somewhat. Prior to Paramount, there was an even bigger gap between Metro Travel teams and the rest of CHRVA. A promising player (particularly one from NoVA) who maybe didn't make a Metro Travel team, didn't want to play for Metro, or couldn't make Metro work logistically, used to look to VA Elite or VA Juniors as the best alternatives. Now that player would usually look to Paramount next.

That said, VA Elite does generally have pretty successful recruiting results, particularly at D3 schools. Perhaps that's good anecdotal evidence that playing on a top tier club isn't needed in order to be recruited to play in college.

[Anonymous]

The biggest disadvantage for Va Elite is their pricing model - they charge a very high travel fee, covering a lot of travel expenses for players. If you don’t travel to tournaments it could make sense financially but otherwise it puts it at a price point out of reach for most. For a non-top 10 team. They seem to attract at older ages because of their ability to get kids signed for college play, but other clubs can and are doing just as well it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest disadvantage for Va Elite is their pricing model - they charge a very high travel fee, covering a lot of travel expenses for players. If you don’t travel to tournaments it could make sense financially but otherwise it puts it at a price point out of reach for most. For a non-top 10 team. They seem to attract at older ages because of their ability to get kids signed for college play, but other clubs can and are doing just as well it seems.

Get kids signed to where.....?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest disadvantage for Va Elite is their pricing model - they charge a very high travel fee, covering a lot of travel expenses for players. If you don’t travel to tournaments it could make sense financially but otherwise it puts it at a price point out of reach for most. For a non-top 10 team. They seem to attract at older ages because of their ability to get kids signed for college play, but other clubs can and are doing just as well it seems.

Get kids signed to where.....?

From the thread on D3 college signings, at least 5 to different D3 schools: Tufts, Bates, Colby, Mary Washington, Salisbury. The first three on this list are excellent academic schools with low acceptance rates, so those players must also be top-tier students. Good for them!