College Commitments
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I saw the discussion about college commitments exploding on a different thread and I was thinking that a separate thread would be very useful for the families who are interested in information of this type. Information would be much easier to find on a thread with a more focused scope. |
Anonymous
what do you want to know? |
FPYCparent
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
Lots of weird stuff showing up in the other thread. Anyway, here's a decent source of ALL D1 indoor volleyball commits. It's not comprehensive, but it is pretty good.
2025 D1 Commits: https://volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/94554/2025-ncaa-d1-indoor-commits 2026 D1 Commits: https://volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/99241/2026-ncaa-d1-indoor-commits 2027 D1 Commits: https://volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/103706/2027-ncaa-d1-indoor-commits There are other threads for D2, D3, NAIA, NJCAA, etc. I'm not going to post links to them all. The non-D1 threads don't appear to be as "organized," so those are a bit harder to follow. ... As of this message, here is what I see from the 2026 and 2027 threads. Of course, these numbers will change. 2026: Metro (13), Paramount (2 ... but not listed in the thread; my 2026 played with both at another club before all three went to Paramount ... so that's how I know), VAJRS (2), VAE (1) 2027: Metro (5), Paramount (4), VAJRS (2), VAE (0) |
Anonymous
| So would all the names listed be getting scholarships? Full rides? Or is the bonus that they get admission to college? If get scholarship to a college and get injured, can student stay once enrolled? What if they are just dropped from team but not bc of injury? |
Anonymous
I don’t assume anyone gets a scholarship in these times. Certainly not everyone is getting full scholarships for volleyball, or any sport. That’s not why these players want to play. But I’m sure any money is nice! |
Anonymous
Up until the recent NCAA settlement related to revenue sharing led to changes, women’s volleyball was limited to a maximum of 12 full scholarships that could not be split between players, meaning the maximum number of volleyball players with athletic scholarships in a given season was 12. Not every program was fully funded (generally smaller, less competitive programs) meaning they may have had less than 12 scholarships athletes or some getting less than a full ride. Not all players got 4 years of scholarship as well. Under the old rules, there was no limit on the number of players on a roster so there were always a number of non-scholarship athletes, even on top teams. Under the new rules, the number of volleyball scholarships has increased to 18 but there is now an 18 player roster limit. It’s now somewhat unclear how that plays out for different conferences/schools. I think all the Power 4 conferences (Big 10, ACC, SEC, and Big 12) are required to abide by the new rules and will all be offering 18 scholarships and limiting rosters to 18 players. For other D1 programs, they can choose to opt in or not and there hasn’t been a lot of information shared about how the new rules will be adopted. Given that there are many conferences/schools that don’t have big revenue football/basketball programs, it’s not clear whether these schools will be willing to invest more in women’s volleyball scholarships. Think conferences like the Atlantic 10, Big South, CAA, Patriot League, etc. Another change is that women’s volleyball scholarships can now be split, meaning that even if a program sticks to 12 scholarships, they may choose to give partial scholarships to more players. Lots of unknowns, but in terms of the original question, every player going to a Power 4 program from this point forward is likely on a full scholarship. Other conferences it’s hard to say, but I think it’s safe to assume that not every player at a mid-major D1 program is on an athletic scholarship. |
Anonymous
I think some families are looking for full scholarships if we are talking about star athletes. Some will probably get those full scholarships, some will probably have to settle for partial or no scholarships. In some cases, families are thinking strategically about college placement, especially in D3 schools. They might not get a full ride (or any ride), but volleyball may be the deciding factor that moves the student application from the "maybe" pile to the "yes" pile. This might be a big deal for those who try to study at very selective schools. |
Anonymous
you make it sound like you think Volleyball is a joke sport in college. Please read up on the new NCAA rules- it applies to all sports, not just football or baseball. Most of the girls listed are getting full scholarships, especially the ones that committed soon after 6/15. Those players probably had numerous offers and went with one that offered them the best deal. Things are changing with NIL but scholarships and profit sharing- absolutely. If your daughter is near recruiting time (June 15th- after sophmore year) then please educate yourself on something other than DCUM |
Anonymous
The Ivy League is Div 1 in most sports, and gives no athletic scholarships. So it's all about the admissions bump at those schools. People also aren't getting athletic scholarships at Div 3 places like Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore -- they are hoping for the admissions bump and also just the fun of playing in college. My oldest is at a selective school and plays a sport just for fun! Was not an admissions bump and gets no money for it. |
Anonymous
|
You can also go to the athletics page of most local High Schools and they will show commitments -- they usually post on their instagram in spring when they have the banquet for committed athletes.
Another thing if you're interested is go to the athletics page of the specific school you are interested in, pull the roster and then google the names of the girls that are in your kid's position. I did this for another sport, just to get an idea of the stats for recruited girls at schools my kid might be interested in. Most kids have pages with video and stats and they usually leave them up even after starting college. After looking at their stats and video, it convinced me that my kid did not have a chance of being recruited at any school she would want to attend! |
Anonymous
Nice summary thanks! Any clue how these clubs have stacked up in years past with college commits? |
Anonymous
Serious, non judgmental question - “all three went to Paramount” did they just move to paramount this season? So another club developed and paramount ultimately gets the credit? That could also be the same for Metro 26 - x moved to Metro one season but that club gets the credit. I see on another twisty turny thread discussion about who develops and who gets credit. And the same thread about kids coming and going in droves at top club(s) in 17/18 year…. So, not meant as a loaded question. |
Anonymous
Cross-posting this from the other thread so we have it here for the future. PP did some good work to pull total commits for 2025:
|
Anonymous
Not the PP, but credit is always taken by the club they play for at commit time. Then, if they committed before U18, again at U18. Lots of comments and analysis done on other threads about where development of players happened up to U16. In general Paramount commits were much more likely to develop at another club (see comments about this year's U18 team only having 1 player that played with them from U16-U18 and none playing for them at U15). Metro does better, averaging about 1/3rd of their 15 player U18 roster coming through Metro U15s and a slightly higher percentage playing U16-U18 (Although this year's U18 was an good outlier, with 8 of the 15 players playing for Metro at U15). That's why you hear people get pretty salty about all the recruiting claims clubs throw out. Its highly likely that another club heavily contributed to a players recruiting success or even had them commit before they moved to a different club. Us "old folks" who have been through the entire cycle eventually learn this, but new families coming in often focus on getting into one of those clubs at a young age believing it will give them the best chance of success. Turns out other early paths often lead to higher success rates, even for future D1/Power 4 players. |
Anonymous
The reality is that some number of players move clubs every season, and that means sometimes a player that has committed or is on the verge of committing will move from one club to another. In CHRVA, some of the higher profile examples have been players who have maybe played 16s at one club and then switched to Metro Travel for 17s and/or 18s. A recent example is the 2025 Penn State commit who played her last 2 seasons of club for Metro, but played 15s and 16s for VAJRs and earlier years at other clubs. But it happens with other clubs too. As you may have seen on another thread there was a mass exodus of 2025 players from Paramount ahead of the season that just ended and only 3 players who had played there at 17s were on their 18s team. That means that some of the players on Paramount 18s were already committed when they joined Paramount and others had been working through the recruiting process at their prior club. From my perspective, it’s common and it would be a little weird for a club to not take at least some credit as the last club a player was at before they went off to college. I also think some clubs are petty about players who leave and delete commitment posts and other mentions of players. I think a better approach is to take credit for club alumni, even if they didn’t finish at a particular club. Loudoun Elite has a list posted of alumni playing in college and include what age they played at the club https://www.loudounelitevb.com/collegecommitments and I think this is totally fine. It also might demonstrate to prospective families that a club does a good job at training young players who maybe move on to more competitive teams as they get older. I think all the bitterness about players moving between clubs and who should get credit is childish. Most players play for multiple clubs over the years and get training from high school coaches, private lessons, etc that all contribute to their development. If a club wants to acknowledge their part of that player’s journey great, but it’s wrong for one club to say that a particular player’s success is solely due to something they did. On a related topic, there is often an implication that something nefarious or inappropriate is involved when a player moves from one club another. Words like “stealing” or “poaching” players gets thrown around sometimes. I also think this is ridiculous assuming the club is operating within the rules. Players and their families have lots of reasons why they might want to switch clubs and a player’s commitment to a club is one season at a time. No club can make a player join against their will. |