Volleyball club- recap and thoughts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think DMV volleyball is missing something here, but this is about the clubs, not the players and parents. Most people in the area don't care about their kids playing volleyball in college. Let me rephrase that. Most people don't want their kids to play volleyball in college. They want their kids to go to college and focus on their studies, gain expertise and get a good job. It is very difficult to do that while playing college volleyball (or any other sport). You either let your grades slip (you don't gain expertise) or you let volleyball slip (and you lose your place on the roster along with your scholarship). Kudos to those who can handle both, but I doubt there's many of them.

With a few exceptions, the clubs should stop pretending that this is the end goal. Let's play locally and avoid travel for the sake of travel. You can find local clubs to kick your behind, you don't need to travel overnight to get your behind kicked.

There are lots of players in the DMV playing in college. Last count the 2025 class had 70+ commits, from D1-D3. The actual number is probably higher, haven’t seen a recent count as final decisions happened this year. They do tend to come from a small number of clubs though, generally those that have teams competing at CHRVA bids/qualifiers and traveling. Last check there were 10-12 clubs with at least 3 commits on their 18s teams.

I will not dispute the number because I don't really care. 70+ players from the DMV area is what? 5% of the total number of players? 10%? How does that affect what I just said about the clubs missing the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think DMV volleyball is missing something here, but this is about the clubs, not the players and parents. Most people in the area don't care about their kids playing volleyball in college. Let me rephrase that. Most people don't want their kids to play volleyball in college. They want their kids to go to college and focus on their studies, gain expertise and get a good job. It is very difficult to do that while playing college volleyball (or any other sport). You either let your grades slip (you don't gain expertise) or you let volleyball slip (and you lose your place on the roster along with your scholarship). Kudos to those who can handle both, but I doubt there's many of them.

With a few exceptions, the clubs should stop pretending that this is the end goal. Let's play locally and avoid travel for the sake of travel. You can find local clubs to kick your behind, you don't need to travel overnight to get your behind kicked.

There are lots of players in the DMV playing in college. Last count the 2025 class had 70+ commits, from D1-D3. The actual number is probably higher, haven’t seen a recent count as final decisions happened this year. They do tend to come from a small number of clubs though, generally those that have teams competing at CHRVA bids/qualifiers and traveling. Last check there were 10-12 clubs with at least 3 commits on their 18s teams.

I will not dispute the number because I don't really care. 70+ players from the DMV area is what? 5% of the total number of players? 10%? How does that affect what I just said about the clubs missing the point?

Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Most people don't want their kids to play volleyball in college. They want their kids to go to college and focus on their studies, gain expertise and get a good job. It is very difficult to do that while playing college volleyball (or any other sport). You either let your grades slip (you don't gain expertise) or you let volleyball slip (and you lose your place on the roster along with your scholarship). Kudos to those who can handle both, but I doubt there's many of them.

If you truly believe those that are committing to play in college are likely to “let their grades slip or let volleyball slip”, then it’s ok not to pursue it. Find a club that doesn’t prioritize and/or demand college recruiting to play on their teams like Metro Travel, VA elite, Paramount, etc. do.

But consider that these days the old stereotypes about college athletes generally don’t hold true anymore. In fact, GPA and graduation rates for athletes in sports like volleyball are actually higher than in the general student body. If you’d like to read more on the topic, there’s a great article at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/socf.12967

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't feel like large numbers of girls are going to top D1 programs. And some go to mid-majors but it feels like lower mid-majors as well. What I don't get is why aren't more girls going to High Academic D3 especially given how much interest there is in these schools in the DMV. The volleyball is good and there is no reason that more girls shouldn't be able to use volleyball to help them get into great schools with sub 15% admissions rates. A quick look at the top high academic D3 programs shows that CA kids outnumber DMV kids 10+ to 1 in conferences like the NESCAC and UAA. Feels like DMV volleyball is missing something here.

I do think DMV volleyball is missing something here, but this is about the clubs, not the players and parents. Most people in the area don't care about their kids playing volleyball in college. Let me rephrase that. Most people don't want their kids to play volleyball in college. They want their kids to go to college and focus on their studies, gain expertise and get a good job. It is very difficult to do that while playing college volleyball (or any other sport). You either let your grades slip (you don't gain expertise) or you let volleyball slip (and you lose your place on the roster along with your scholarship). Kudos to those who can handle both, but I doubt there's many of them.

With a few exceptions, the clubs should stop pretending that this is the end goal. Let's play locally and avoid travel for the sake of travel. You can find local clubs to kick your behind, you don't need to travel overnight to get your behind kicked.

There are lots of players in the DMV playing in college. Last count the 2025 class had 70+ commits, from D1-D3. The actual number is probably higher, haven’t seen a recent count as final decisions happened this year. They do tend to come from a small number of clubs though, generally those that have teams competing at CHRVA bids/qualifiers and traveling. Last check there were 10-12 clubs with at least 3 commits on their 18s teams.

There are a number of high academic players as well, but they tend to be more spread out amongst clubs—-metro and paramount aren’t generally getting many players into those schools, but there are certainly exceptions.

High academic volleyball recruiting correlates more with the players HS than their club, at least in the DMV. You often see players from the DMV private schools like GDS, Bullis, Sidwell, etc. going to those schools. There’s also a reasonable number from MCPS schools in MD.

The real reason CA outnumbers DMV is because there is more population in CA, and proportionally more of that population play volleyball. They’ve been playing it longer there, and it’s a bigger sport with more established recruiting pathways.

Playing a sport in college is hard, and it isn’t for everyone. There’s nothing wrong with playing club volleyball-at any level-and then moving on to other things in college. Certain clubs absolutely focus (arguably over focus) on the college recruiting as a way to differentiate, but there are lots of clubs that’s don’t—even if they are successfully getting players onto college teams.

High academic schools? Aside from Ivy League, what other conferences are you classifying in that category?

D1: Ivy, Big10, ACC, PAC12
D3: NESCAC, UAA, Centennial, Liberty, NEAC, SCIAC

There’s at lot of players going to schools in those divisions from the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But consider that these days the old stereotypes about college athletes generally don’t hold true anymore. In fact, GPA and graduation rates for athletes in sports like volleyball are actually higher than in the general student body. If you’d like to read more on the topic, there’s a great article at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/socf.12967

It's easy to cherry-pick articles that appear to make your point. When you want to have this type of conversations, besides a link to the article, you should also provide a quote that summarizes the point you are trying to make (look what I will be doing next). Not everyone has the time to read an entire article and not everyone is able to interpret the data.

The fact that the student athletes manage to graduate with similar GPA as the non-athletes doesn't tell the whole story. Here is a link to an article (https://doi.org/10.70252/FIJG1609) that concludes that "The results of this study sheds light on an important dynamic between athletic identity and academic major selection amongst student-athletes. This dynamic, although seen across all divisions and sports, largely impacts student-athletes who possess a higher degree of athletic identity. This higher degree not only limits the academic scope of student-athletes, but the scope of career preparations and exploration is limited as well. Through academic clustering, overemphasizing the athletic identity of being a student-athlete, and lack of academic and career exploration, student-athletes are finding themselves choosing academic majors with less rigor. By using rigor, or lack thereof, as the basis of academic major selection, student-athletes are choosing to place their athletic career over their academic and/or professional career. This decision negatively impacts academic and career satisfaction, along with future earning potential within their respective career fields."

And here is a statement that perfectly explains the results of the study you linked to: "Placing a strong emphasis on meeting the APR requirement is commendable. However, by funneling student-athletes into specific majors due to their lowered rigor and flexibility when scheduling around practice and travel, while also disregarding the interests and goals of the student-athletes, is detrimental to their academic and career trajectories (20). By overemphasizing the role of being an athlete, student-athlete unknowingly create a psychosocial divide between their academic and athletic identities. If this divide leads student-athletes to identify more with their role as an athlete, it can lead to a downward trend in academic output, such as lower grade point averages (GPA) and overall effort put into academics (2). This lowered effort and downward trend in GPAs would negatively impact the APR and GSR, but due to strategic placement in less rigorous majors, the negative trends are successfully prevented."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't feel like large numbers of girls are going to top D1 programs. And some go to mid-majors but it feels like lower mid-majors as well. What I don't get is why aren't more girls going to High Academic D3 especially given how much interest there is in these schools in the DMV. The volleyball is good and there is no reason that more girls shouldn't be able to use volleyball to help them get into great schools with sub 15% admissions rates. A quick look at the top high academic D3 programs shows that CA kids outnumber DMV kids 10+ to 1 in conferences like the NESCAC and UAA. Feels like DMV volleyball is missing something here.

I do think DMV volleyball is missing something here, but this is about the clubs, not the players and parents. Most people in the area don't care about their kids playing volleyball in college. Let me rephrase that. Most people don't want their kids to play volleyball in college. They want their kids to go to college and focus on their studies, gain expertise and get a good job. It is very difficult to do that while playing college volleyball (or any other sport). You either let your grades slip (you don't gain expertise) or you let volleyball slip (and you lose your place on the roster along with your scholarship). Kudos to those who can handle both, but I doubt there's many of them.

With a few exceptions, the clubs should stop pretending that this is the end goal. Let's play locally and avoid travel for the sake of travel. You can find local clubs to kick your behind, you don't need to travel overnight to get your behind kicked.

There are lots of players in the DMV playing in college. Last count the 2025 class had 70+ commits, from D1-D3. The actual number is probably higher, haven’t seen a recent count as final decisions happened this year. They do tend to come from a small number of clubs though, generally those that have teams competing at CHRVA bids/qualifiers and traveling. Last check there were 10-12 clubs with at least 3 commits on their 18s teams.

There are a number of high academic players as well, but they tend to be more spread out amongst clubs—-metro and paramount aren’t generally getting many players into those schools, but there are certainly exceptions.

High academic volleyball recruiting correlates more with the players HS than their club, at least in the DMV. You often see players from the DMV private schools like GDS, Bullis, Sidwell, etc. going to those schools. There’s also a reasonable number from MCPS schools in MD.

The real reason CA outnumbers DMV is because there is more population in CA, and proportionally more of that population play volleyball. They’ve been playing it longer there, and it’s a bigger sport with more established recruiting pathways.

Playing a sport in college is hard, and it isn’t for everyone. There’s nothing wrong with playing club volleyball-at any level-and then moving on to other things in college. Certain clubs absolutely focus (arguably over focus) on the college recruiting as a way to differentiate, but there are lots of clubs that’s don’t—even if they are successfully getting players onto college teams.

High academic schools? Aside from Ivy League, what other conferences are you classifying in that category?

NESCAC and UAA for D3, a bit of Patriot League for D1 along with some other schools mixed in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Have you heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Your statistics is a combination of selective bias, convenient sample size, and faulty correlations. You chose to ignore that most players stop playing before they reach the 18s age group. Have you heard of clubs with 3 teams at 14, 15, and 16 level that have trouble filling their 18s roster? I did. You are grossly underestimating of the number of volleyball players unless you purposefully define them based on how many are still playing club in the 18s teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Have you heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Your statistics is a combination of selective bias, convenient sample size, and faulty correlations. You chose to ignore that most players stop playing before they reach the 18s age group. Have you heard of clubs with 3 teams at 14, 15, and 16 level that have trouble filling their 18s roster? I did. You are grossly underestimating of the number of volleyball players unless you purposefully define them based on how many are still playing club in the 18s teams.

Not the PP, but I think you’ve lost the point of the discussion. If you don’t want your child playing volleyball in college, then tell them that. If a club is open about their college focus or travels too much, don’t play for them. There are lots of clubs that only play a regional schedule, if you need a list ask this forum. I’m sure people will be willing help.

But claiming someone is lying, misrepresenting data and biased when they were providing info on CHRVA clubs and doing so in a way that was reasonable just makes it seem like you want a flame war, not a productive discussion.

To your point above, in every childhood activity the number of participants drops as they progress through high school and drops again as they reach college. Pick any group of extra-curricular activities and you’ll see the same patterns you see in club volleyball. It’s very fair to compare senior year engagement with college commitments, as very few colleges players don’t play club volleyball their senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Have you heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Your statistics is a combination of selective bias, convenient sample size, and faulty correlations. You chose to ignore that most players stop playing before they reach the 18s age group. Have you heard of clubs with 3 teams at 14, 15, and 16 level that have trouble filling their 18s roster? I did. You are grossly underestimating of the number of volleyball players unless you purposefully define them based on how many are still playing club in the 18s teams.

Not the PP, but I think you’ve lost the point of the discussion. If you don’t want your child playing volleyball in college, then tell them that. If a club is open about their college focus or travels too much, don’t play for them. There are lots of clubs that only play a regional schedule, if you need a list ask this forum. I’m sure people will be willing help.

But claiming someone is lying, misrepresenting data and biased when they were providing info on CHRVA clubs and doing so in a way that was reasonable just makes it seem like you want a flame war, not a productive discussion.

To your point above, in every childhood activity the number of participants drops as they progress through high school and drops again as they reach college. Pick any group of extra-curricular activities and you’ll see the same patterns you see in club volleyball. It’s very fair to compare senior year engagement with college commitments, as very few colleges players don’t play club volleyball their senior year.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is typically used to suggest that one can manipulate statistics to prove any point they want to. It is not necessarily accusing someone of lying. But if you use science to prove your point, you may have to deal with a scientist who knows a thing or two about statistics and doesn't buy your argument / interpretation. It is surprising that the paper linked to by the PP managed to get through peer-review with those claims. Even without working in the field you can tell that important caveats are missing from that study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Have you heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Your statistics is a combination of selective bias, convenient sample size, and faulty correlations. You chose to ignore that most players stop playing before they reach the 18s age group. Have you heard of clubs with 3 teams at 14, 15, and 16 level that have trouble filling their 18s roster? I did. You are grossly underestimating of the number of volleyball players unless you purposefully define them based on how many are still playing club in the 18s teams.

Not the PP, but I think you’ve lost the point of the discussion. If you don’t want your child playing volleyball in college, then tell them that. If a club is open about their college focus or travels too much, don’t play for them. There are lots of clubs that only play a regional schedule, if you need a list ask this forum. I’m sure people will be willing help.

But claiming someone is lying, misrepresenting data and biased when they were providing info on CHRVA clubs and doing so in a way that was reasonable just makes it seem like you want a flame war, not a productive discussion.

To your point above, in every childhood activity the number of participants drops as they progress through high school and drops again as they reach college. Pick any group of extra-curricular activities and you’ll see the same patterns you see in club volleyball. It’s very fair to compare senior year engagement with college commitments, as very few colleges players don’t play club volleyball their senior year.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is typically used to suggest that one can manipulate statistics to prove any point they want to. It is not necessarily accusing someone of lying. But if you use science to prove your point, you may have to deal with a scientist who knows a thing or two about statistics and doesn't buy your argument / interpretation. It is surprising that the paper linked to by the PP managed to get through peer-review with those claims. Even without working in the field you can tell that important caveats are missing from that study.

Simple questions: Why do 25% of students at MIT and Caltech play varsity sports? Why does Caltrech advertise that nearly 80% of students participate in some form of athletics?

Why does MIT say on their admissions page? “It is possible to be a student and athlete at MIT. About 25% of MIT students participate in varsity athletics, and on average, our varsity athletes have slightly higher GPAs than non-varsity athletes.”

You’ll also find numbers in the same range for virtually every high academic school including University of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins and virtually every high academic D3. The numbers at high academic D1 schools are lower as a percentage of the student body, but that is largely due to there being a limited number of teams and much larger student bodies.

Over-identifying as an athlete—the cohort analyzed in your study—certainly has some potential long-term negative impacts. But in low-visibility female sports like volleyball (which it is in every conference except the Power 5), the athletes tend to be more balanced. Those students aren’t clustering into easier majors, they are just balancing athletics and academics better. Hence MIT’s claim above.

As I said before, I don’t believe the focus of a few clubs on college recruiting is generally good for the player or the sport, but it’s understandable why they do so. If you believe playing college volleyball is bad for your child then tell them that and keep them away from clubs that focus on it. There are plenty of clubs who give players the chance to play without focusing on recruiting, and some of those teams are very good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Have you heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Your statistics is a combination of selective bias, convenient sample size, and faulty correlations. You chose to ignore that most players stop playing before they reach the 18s age group. Have you heard of clubs with 3 teams at 14, 15, and 16 level that have trouble filling their 18s roster? I did. You are grossly underestimating of the number of volleyball players unless you purposefully define them based on how many are still playing club in the 18s teams.

Not the PP, but I think you’ve lost the point of the discussion. If you don’t want your child playing volleyball in college, then tell them that. If a club is open about their college focus or travels too much, don’t play for them. There are lots of clubs that only play a regional schedule, if you need a list ask this forum. I’m sure people will be willing help.

But claiming someone is lying, misrepresenting data and biased when they were providing info on CHRVA clubs and doing so in a way that was reasonable just makes it seem like you want a flame war, not a productive discussion.

To your point above, in every childhood activity the number of participants drops as they progress through high school and drops again as they reach college. Pick any group of extra-curricular activities and you’ll see the same patterns you see in club volleyball. It’s very fair to compare senior year engagement with college commitments, as very few colleges players don’t play club volleyball their senior year.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is typically used to suggest that one can manipulate statistics to prove any point they want to. It is not necessarily accusing someone of lying. But if you use science to prove your point, you may have to deal with a scientist who knows a thing or two about statistics and doesn't buy your argument / interpretation. It is surprising that the paper linked to by the PP managed to get through peer-review with those claims. Even without working in the field you can tell that important caveats are missing from that study.

Simple questions: Why do 25% of students at MIT and Caltech play varsity sports? Why does Caltrech advertise that nearly 80% of students participate in some form of athletics?

Why does MIT say on their admissions page? “It is possible to be a student and athlete at MIT. About 25% of MIT students participate in varsity athletics, and on average, our varsity athletes have slightly higher GPAs than non-varsity athletes.”

You’ll also find numbers in the same range for virtually every high academic school including University of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins and virtually every high academic D3. The numbers at high academic D1 schools are lower as a percentage of the student body, but that is largely due to there being a limited number of teams and much larger student bodies.

Over-identifying as an athlete—the cohort analyzed in your study—certainly has some potential long-term negative impacts. But in low-visibility female sports like volleyball (which it is in every conference except the Power 5), the athletes tend to be more balanced. Those students aren’t clustering into easier majors, they are just balancing athletics and academics better. Hence MIT’s claim above.

As I said before, I don’t believe the focus of a few clubs on college recruiting is generally good for the player or the sport, but it’s understandable why they do so. If you believe playing college volleyball is bad for your child then tell them that and keep them away from clubs that focus on it. There are plenty of clubs who give players the chance to play without focusing on recruiting, and some of those teams are very good.

Simple question: why do you talk about playing varsity at MIT as if everyone should be able to do it? How many students from this area make it into MIT? How many of them are good enough to play varsity sports at MIT? I am looking at this as a "dream on" type of a scenario. If any of the players in this area can do it, tip of the hat to them. The vast majority of volleyball players in this area will not achieve anything close to that. You are focusing on exceptions rather than the average player: you are above 3 sigma (maybe even higher) if you think in terms of a bell curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Have you heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Your statistics is a combination of selective bias, convenient sample size, and faulty correlations. You chose to ignore that most players stop playing before they reach the 18s age group. Have you heard of clubs with 3 teams at 14, 15, and 16 level that have trouble filling their 18s roster? I did. You are grossly underestimating of the number of volleyball players unless you purposefully define them based on how many are still playing club in the 18s teams.

Not the PP, but I think you’ve lost the point of the discussion. If you don’t want your child playing volleyball in college, then tell them that. If a club is open about their college focus or travels too much, don’t play for them. There are lots of clubs that only play a regional schedule, if you need a list ask this forum. I’m sure people will be willing help.

But claiming someone is lying, misrepresenting data and biased when they were providing info on CHRVA clubs and doing so in a way that was reasonable just makes it seem like you want a flame war, not a productive discussion.

To your point above, in every childhood activity the number of participants drops as they progress through high school and drops again as they reach college. Pick any group of extra-curricular activities and you’ll see the same patterns you see in club volleyball. It’s very fair to compare senior year engagement with college commitments, as very few colleges players don’t play club volleyball their senior year.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is typically used to suggest that one can manipulate statistics to prove any point they want to. It is not necessarily accusing someone of lying. But if you use science to prove your point, you may have to deal with a scientist who knows a thing or two about statistics and doesn't buy your argument / interpretation. It is surprising that the paper linked to by the PP managed to get through peer-review with those claims. Even without working in the field you can tell that important caveats are missing from that study.

Simple questions: Why do 25% of students at MIT and Caltech play varsity sports? Why does Caltrech advertise that nearly 80% of students participate in some form of athletics?

Why does MIT say on their admissions page? “It is possible to be a student and athlete at MIT. About 25% of MIT students participate in varsity athletics, and on average, our varsity athletes have slightly higher GPAs than non-varsity athletes.”

You’ll also find numbers in the same range for virtually every high academic school including University of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins and virtually every high academic D3. The numbers at high academic D1 schools are lower as a percentage of the student body, but that is largely due to there being a limited number of teams and much larger student bodies.

Over-identifying as an athlete—the cohort analyzed in your study—certainly has some potential long-term negative impacts. But in low-visibility female sports like volleyball (which it is in every conference except the Power 5), the athletes tend to be more balanced. Those students aren’t clustering into easier majors, they are just balancing athletics and academics better. Hence MIT’s claim above.

As I said before, I don’t believe the focus of a few clubs on college recruiting is generally good for the player or the sport, but it’s understandable why they do so. If you believe playing college volleyball is bad for your child then tell them that and keep them away from clubs that focus on it. There are plenty of clubs who give players the chance to play without focusing on recruiting, and some of those teams are very good.

Simple question: why do you talk about playing varsity at MIT as if everyone should be able to do it? How many students from this area make it into MIT? How many of them are good enough to play varsity sports at MIT? I am looking at this as a "dream on" type of a scenario. If any of the players in this area can do it, tip of the hat to them. The vast majority of volleyball players in this area will not achieve anything close to that. You are focusing on exceptions rather than the average player: you are above 3 sigma (maybe even higher) if you think in terms of a bell curve.

PP started with MIT and then proceeded to explain that virtually every other high academic school has the same sports participation rate. Someone else gave you a list of conferences that are considered very good academically, which covers a large number of schools. Seems like they are doing a good job giving you data that proves the rule, not arguing the exception.

The only facts you provided were that students who over identify as athletes may have issues, which PP agreed with.

There certainly are volleyball players who over focus on volleyball and hurt their grades, but our experience has largely been the opposite. Most players on our DD club team were very good academically and specifically focusing on those types of schools, regardless if they were planning on playing volleyball in college or not.

[Anonymous]

Most NESCACs are at least 50% student athletes. Helps with social scene

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Have you heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Your statistics is a combination of selective bias, convenient sample size, and faulty correlations. You chose to ignore that most players stop playing before they reach the 18s age group. Have you heard of clubs with 3 teams at 14, 15, and 16 level that have trouble filling their 18s roster? I did. You are grossly underestimating of the number of volleyball players unless you purposefully define them based on how many are still playing club in the 18s teams.

Not the PP, but I think you’ve lost the point of the discussion. If you don’t want your child playing volleyball in college, then tell them that. If a club is open about their college focus or travels too much, don’t play for them. There are lots of clubs that only play a regional schedule, if you need a list ask this forum. I’m sure people will be willing help.

But claiming someone is lying, misrepresenting data and biased when they were providing info on CHRVA clubs and doing so in a way that was reasonable just makes it seem like you want a flame war, not a productive discussion.

To your point above, in every childhood activity the number of participants drops as they progress through high school and drops again as they reach college. Pick any group of extra-curricular activities and you’ll see the same patterns you see in club volleyball. It’s very fair to compare senior year engagement with college commitments, as very few colleges players don’t play club volleyball their senior year.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is typically used to suggest that one can manipulate statistics to prove any point they want to. It is not necessarily accusing someone of lying. But if you use science to prove your point, you may have to deal with a scientist who knows a thing or two about statistics and doesn't buy your argument / interpretation. It is surprising that the paper linked to by the PP managed to get through peer-review with those claims. Even without working in the field you can tell that important caveats are missing from that study.

Simple questions: Why do 25% of students at MIT and Caltech play varsity sports? Why does Caltrech advertise that nearly 80% of students participate in some form of athletics?

Why does MIT say on their admissions page? “It is possible to be a student and athlete at MIT. About 25% of MIT students participate in varsity athletics, and on average, our varsity athletes have slightly higher GPAs than non-varsity athletes.”

You’ll also find numbers in the same range for virtually every high academic school including University of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins and virtually every high academic D3. The numbers at high academic D1 schools are lower as a percentage of the student body, but that is largely due to there being a limited number of teams and much larger student bodies.

Over-identifying as an athlete—the cohort analyzed in your study—certainly has some potential long-term negative impacts. But in low-visibility female sports like volleyball (which it is in every conference except the Power 5), the athletes tend to be more balanced. Those students aren’t clustering into easier majors, they are just balancing athletics and academics better. Hence MIT’s claim above.

As I said before, I don’t believe the focus of a few clubs on college recruiting is generally good for the player or the sport, but it’s understandable why they do so. If you believe playing college volleyball is bad for your child then tell them that and keep them away from clubs that focus on it. There are plenty of clubs who give players the chance to play without focusing on recruiting, and some of those teams are very good.

Simple question: why do you talk about playing varsity at MIT as if everyone should be able to do it? How many students from this area make it into MIT? How many of them are good enough to play varsity sports at MIT? I am looking at this as a "dream on" type of a scenario. If any of the players in this area can do it, tip of the hat to them. The vast majority of volleyball players in this area will not achieve anything close to that. You are focusing on exceptions rather than the average player: you are above 3 sigma (maybe even higher) if you think in terms of a bell curve.

PP started with MIT and then proceeded to explain that virtually every other high academic school has the same sports participation rate. Someone else gave you a list of conferences that are considered very good academically, which covers a large number of schools. Seems like they are doing a good job giving you data that proves the rule, not arguing the exception.

The only facts you provided were that students who over identify as athletes may have issues, which PP agreed with.

There certainly are volleyball players who over focus on volleyball and hurt their grades, but our experience has largely been the opposite. Most players on our DD club team were very good academically and specifically focusing on those types of schools, regardless if they were planning on playing volleyball in college or not.

You can replace MIT with whatever school with high academic standards and my question still stands. How many athletes in the area end up at those universities? My case is simple: most players in the area will not play in college for whatever reason (they might not be tall enough, they might not be good enough, the family might decide to focus on academics rather than sports, and so on). Your case is that players who play in college may end up doing fine. Both can be true at the same time. However, I am talking about a majority of players, while you are talking about a minority. From those who end up playing sports in college (your minority), a percentage will end up doing fine, the others will end up with a less rigorous major, potentially unemployable, or employable in a field with low income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you’d need to know how many 18s teams there are in CHRVA (62), and roughly how many of those are in the DMV (~30). 70+ commits is 20%, the final number is probably somewhere around 30%-40%, its higher if you add in players playing club volleyball in college. 30% is plenty for some clubs to focus on college recruiting as a primary marketing tactic. While I don’t agree with never ending stream of social media posts about it—especially when a player played for other clubs for the vast majority of their club career—it is a business and there are enough players/families that want to pursue college volleyball in the region to make it possible to focus a club on it.

Have you heard of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Your statistics is a combination of selective bias, convenient sample size, and faulty correlations. You chose to ignore that most players stop playing before they reach the 18s age group. Have you heard of clubs with 3 teams at 14, 15, and 16 level that have trouble filling their 18s roster? I did. You are grossly underestimating of the number of volleyball players unless you purposefully define them based on how many are still playing club in the 18s teams.

Not the PP, but I think you’ve lost the point of the discussion. If you don’t want your child playing volleyball in college, then tell them that. If a club is open about their college focus or travels too much, don’t play for them. There are lots of clubs that only play a regional schedule, if you need a list ask this forum. I’m sure people will be willing help.

But claiming someone is lying, misrepresenting data and biased when they were providing info on CHRVA clubs and doing so in a way that was reasonable just makes it seem like you want a flame war, not a productive discussion.

To your point above, in every childhood activity the number of participants drops as they progress through high school and drops again as they reach college. Pick any group of extra-curricular activities and you’ll see the same patterns you see in club volleyball. It’s very fair to compare senior year engagement with college commitments, as very few colleges players don’t play club volleyball their senior year.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is typically used to suggest that one can manipulate statistics to prove any point they want to. It is not necessarily accusing someone of lying. But if you use science to prove your point, you may have to deal with a scientist who knows a thing or two about statistics and doesn't buy your argument / interpretation. It is surprising that the paper linked to by the PP managed to get through peer-review with those claims. Even without working in the field you can tell that important caveats are missing from that study.

Simple questions: Why do 25% of students at MIT and Caltech play varsity sports? Why does Caltrech advertise that nearly 80% of students participate in some form of athletics?

Why does MIT say on their admissions page? “It is possible to be a student and athlete at MIT. About 25% of MIT students participate in varsity athletics, and on average, our varsity athletes have slightly higher GPAs than non-varsity athletes.”

You’ll also find numbers in the same range for virtually every high academic school including University of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins and virtually every high academic D3. The numbers at high academic D1 schools are lower as a percentage of the student body, but that is largely due to there being a limited number of teams and much larger student bodies.

Over-identifying as an athlete—the cohort analyzed in your study—certainly has some potential long-term negative impacts. But in low-visibility female sports like volleyball (which it is in every conference except the Power 5), the athletes tend to be more balanced. Those students aren’t clustering into easier majors, they are just balancing athletics and academics better. Hence MIT’s claim above.

As I said before, I don’t believe the focus of a few clubs on college recruiting is generally good for the player or the sport, but it’s understandable why they do so. If you believe playing college volleyball is bad for your child then tell them that and keep them away from clubs that focus on it. There are plenty of clubs who give players the chance to play without focusing on recruiting, and some of those teams are very good.

Simple question: why do you talk about playing varsity at MIT as if everyone should be able to do it? How many students from this area make it into MIT? How many of them are good enough to play varsity sports at MIT? I am looking at this as a "dream on" type of a scenario. If any of the players in this area can do it, tip of the hat to them. The vast majority of volleyball players in this area will not achieve anything close to that. You are focusing on exceptions rather than the average player: you are above 3 sigma (maybe even higher) if you think in terms of a bell curve.

PP started with MIT and then proceeded to explain that virtually every other high academic school has the same sports participation rate. Someone else gave you a list of conferences that are considered very good academically, which covers a large number of schools. Seems like they are doing a good job giving you data that proves the rule, not arguing the exception.

The only facts you provided were that students who over identify as athletes may have issues, which PP agreed with.

There certainly are volleyball players who over focus on volleyball and hurt their grades, but our experience has largely been the opposite. Most players on our DD club team were very good academically and specifically focusing on those types of schools, regardless if they were planning on playing volleyball in college or not.

And by the way, I was not the one asking the question "High academic schools? Aside from Ivy League, what other conferences are you classifying in that category?" I don't really care because my DD is an average player who doesn't have the drive (nor the height) to play in college. What rattled me was the "science" that the PP used to demonstrate that student athletes have similar or even greater GPA and graduation rates than the non-athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most NESCACs are at least 50% student athletes. Helps with social scene

Most NESCACs are around 30% athletes, not anywhere near 50%