Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
NP and driving to Manassas is awful but we can take the express lanes from our house in VA. We have for clinics and it’s $$$$ but both worse than anywhere else if we pay. She doesn’t want to try out for Paramount for several reasons and it would be a long shot anyway. I am not driving into DC for any club for practices for any reason. It just isn’t happening. That’s right, we never go there. |
Anonymous
| * that should say not worse than anywhere else |
Anonymous
From the perspective of someone who has driven that route more times than I can count, the express lanes aren't going to help the commute out of Montgomery County to Manassas much at all. The biggest traffic issue usually isn't after the bridge (in VA), its before the bridge (MD). They aren't making the bridge wider anytime soon and the typical rush hour mess caused by everyone slowing down going over the bridge because the sun is in their eyes isn't going to change. We rarely ran into heavy traffic on the VA side of 495 until we got to 66, and then traffic got heavy again. Coming from MD and living near River Road and getting onto 495 at the last entrance before the bridge, the fastest time for us was 40 minutes. The longest was more than 2 hours (usually due to construction and/or accidents). I'd guess we averaged around 60 minutes. After the government return to office mandate and many companies following suit, traffic increased a lot. We're fans of Paramount, but the commute from the MD/DC side can be difficult. Carpooling helps make it easier for the parents, but the players are still in the car for about 2-3 hours for weekday practice days and 90 minutes to 2 hours on the weekend. Your DD has to be really good at getting her studying/homework done in the car ride otherwise the choices are staying up late or letting your grades slip. |
Anonymous
I would buy Metro. Paramounts coaching, specifically the owner’s son is a liability. Using players against other players is unhealthy. Paramount will implode eventually. |
Anonymous
I agree that the "pyramid" you describe is a proven recipe for large club success. Its the same structure used by the hundreds of clubs that have multiple teams in an age group, including many in CHRVA. But neither Metro or Paramount actually use the pyramid structure, even though Paramount added 2s teams. For this years' Paramount 13-1, 14-1 & 15-1 teams, I couldn't find a single player who moved up to the 1s from the prior years 2s. Look at the 14-1, 15-1 and 16-1 makeups for this year compared to their rosters last year: - 2025 16-1, 6 new players, 7 returning. No players moved up from 15-2 to 16-1. - 2025 15-1, 7 new players, 7 returning. No players moved up from 14-2 to 15-1. - 2025 14-1, 9 new players, 6 returning. No players move up from 13-2 to 14-1 Out of 42 players on those three teams, 22 (52%) seem to have come from outside of Paramount 2024 club teams. If you look back at 2023, its over 75% and after 3 years (2023) it probably exceeds 85%. This matches another PP who covered their 18s team in depth, showing only 1 player played on their 16s -- which means 93% of their 18s players came from another club. That PP pointed out that one of two things is happening: either Paramount's top players are leaving of their own choice, or Paramount is replacing them with better players trained by other clubs. It is rare for a club to have multiple teams and no movement up to the 1s from their 2s, especially when the 1s teams are losing between 1/3 and 1/2 of their players each year. All of the clubs you mentioned from outside CHRVA do move players regularly because they focus on player development more. A big driver of that development is roster sizes. Paramount averages 14 players on their 1s teams. Circle City and Legacy average 11, and their 2s+ rosters are smaller than their 1s. Paramount's 2s teams averaged 15 players. Roster sizes are a big reason why "pyramids" work. Paramount's real pyramid relies on other clubs in the region to keep developing talent that they can pull away and use for 1-2 years to win. Essentially, Paramount's pouring water in the top of the boat (bring in new players from other clubs) as fast as they can, while water is leaking out of the bottom of the boat (existing players leaving b/c of environment or lack of development). The boat's still afloat, but if they don't fix the leak it will eventually sink. Metro Travel hasn't had multiple teams or a traditional pyramid structure. Metro is more like A5 with its "core" club (just called A5) and several "regional" clubs (e.g. Gwinnett). For Metro the regions haven't really developed many players for the Travel teams. Historically, Metro has also relied on other clubs to develop players to the point where they were Travel level, both for the U13 team and then to replace any lost/cut players in the older teams. But because Metro Travel is able to hold on to more of its players year over year and develop them at least as fast as other clubs were developing players, they've been able to sustain their performance without as severe a turnover each year. For example, 8 of Metro's 18s team played U15 with them. TLDR: Despite all of the marketing thrown out by both Paramount parents and staff, Paramount hasn't had any success developing players from their 2s teams (and soon 3s teams) onto their top teams. They've really just copied the legacy Metro Travel model of focusing on their top player development. Except Metro Travel holds on to more of its travel team year over year than Paramount does. So despite having 2s (and soon 3s) teams, the lack of player development has forced Paramount to aggressively recruit out of other clubs to find talent to replace the roughly half of 1s players they have been losing each year. That's why you see posts like "HOV Lanes coming to 495 -- its a much shorter drive from Maryland now!". Paramount needs to reach into the MD side to keep their talent pipeline going and clubs like MVSA, MD Juniors, MOCO, etc. that have 3+ teams at most ages and have been running U11/U12 teams for years are generally viewed as good talent developers. Finally, Paramount's teams being in different divisions at USA nationals is directly related to how they did at CHRVA bids -- its not a choice made by the club in how they register them. Its determined by how they finish at bids. If 14-2 beats 14-1, then 14-2 would have been in National and the 14-1 in American or Freedom. Paramount does choose to put their teams in different divisions at qualifiers, but there is zero uniqueness to that approach in club volleyball. In CHRVA, a lot of clubs have multiple teams in an age group that attend qualifiers, and virtually all of them do the same thing. You might see a 1s team in USA, a 2s team in Liberty and a 3s in America for example. Its common practice across the country, especially at AAU Nationals where the top clubs are trying to win a national championship at one of the 7 levels.
If you are buying stock based on win/loss record and bids, both clubs are very good. I would probably buy Paramount stock for the short term because they are winning now, but Metro Travel is still the blue chip. But your focus weren't focused just on winning - most of your argument focused in player development. I would short stock in Paramount if their future is tied to successful training of 2s (and now 3s) players into 1s players. When zero players move up to your top teams and half the players leave every year, something is broken in your culture and your player development pyramid. That's not going to change without significant adjustments in both philosophy and coaching. Either they fix it or the boat will start sinking. |
Anonymous
Lot's of good analysis here. In particular, I think it pretty conclusively disproves the narrative that gets repeated over and over on these forums that Paramount has superior training and is developing players that Metro didn't want and turning them into open qualifiers and D1 prospects. The data presented supports the opposite conclusion - Paramount is taking players who were trained at other clubs, achieving some success, until those players leave for other clubs because they couldn't handle the toxic culture. Metro Travel tends to hold onto more players from season to season and achieves success by developing those players, although there are some notable examples of players who don't come to Metro until 16s or older. Also, for a variety of reasons it is true that Metro still tends to attract more of the highest potential players. One interesting thing to watch in the coming seasons as the players on Paramount and Metro's youngest team (that are still somewhat new), will be how many of the players on their 11s and 12s teams end up still being top players at 17s and 18s. A lot of the girls that seem super promising at 11s or 12s are the ones who physically mature a little earlier so they seem really exceptional against their peers, but as they age up can sometimes plateau. Similarly, when looking at players who are 11 or 12 it's not always obvious where they are going to end up height-wise. It's possible that a girl who is 5'10" when she's 12 might grow to 6'3" or might not grow another inch. Also, at 11s and 12s, players are more likely to be playing because that's what their parents want. By 14 or 15, if the player is not enjoying the intensity or able to handle the pressure of being on one of these teams with big goals and expectations, they will likely look for something else. In terms of your conclusion on which club to buy stock in, I don't think that "Paramount stock for the short term because they are winning now" is the right choice if you look at the complete picture. It is true that Paramount earned more bids to USAV Nationals this year, but as is often the case with Paramount, that is a single stat that gets amplified while ignoring the bigger picture. I borrowed the information showing divisions and results from Nationals below from another thread and eliminated all but the Paramount and Metro teams: 18s Open, Metro 18 Travel, 13 of 48 National, Paramount 18 Walter, 27 of 48 17s Open, Metro 17 Travel, 3 of 36 National, Paramount 17 Nick, 34 of 48 16s Open, Paramount 16 Nick, 33 of 36 National, Metro 16 Travel, 2 of 48 15s Open, Paramount 15 Maureen, 29 of 36 National, Metro 15 Travel, 1 of 48 National, Paramount 15 Cruz, 37 of 48 14s Open, Metro 14 Travel, 13 of 36 National, Paramount 14 Cozad, 33 of 48 Freedom, Paramount 14 Anderson, 29 of 48 13s National, Metro 13 Travel, 27 of 48 National, Paramount 13 Jaz, 17 of 48 12s National, Metro 12 Travel, 31 of 48 American, Paramount 12 Jaz, 26 of 64 So Paramount had 8 total bids versus 7 for Metro. Paramount had 2 Open bids, 4 National bids, 1 American bid, and 1 Freedom bid. Metro had 3 Open bids and 4 National bids. So in terms levels of bids, I'd give the edge to Metro with all 7 of their bids being in the National or Open divisions. What about results? Metro did particularly well this year at Nationals with 17 Travel finishing 3rd in 17 Open, 15 Travel winning the 15 National championship, and 16 Travel coming in 2nd in 16 National. The other two Metro teams that played in Open did pretty well too, with 18 Travel finishing 13th out of 48 and 14 Travel finishing 13th out of 36. Paramount on the other hand did not do as well. Their two Open qualified teams, including their much lauded 16s struggled, with Paramount 16s finishing 33rd out of 36 and Paramount 15s finishing 29th out of 36. One bright spot for Paramount was their 13s finished ahead of 13 Travel with Paramount 13s finishing 17 out of 48 and Metro 13 Travel finishing 27 out of 48. In a more head to head comparison, Metro came out on top of Paramount at CHRVA Bid Regionals at every age group that had both a Metro Travel and Paramount team except for 18s, where Paramount beat Metro in the quarterfinals. So if your criteria for which club to buy stock in is their win/loss performance, I think Metro is the better choice. |
Anonymous
|
Last place in gold (Open) is still better than first place in silver (National), right?
The question that should be asked is that why Metro 15 and 16, with so much talent, didn't even qualify for Open. |
Anonymous
I guess as an academic exercise, every team in Open is better than every team in National, and every team in National is better than every team in USA, and on and on. But if you know anything about club volleyball (or sports in general), you know it’s never that clear cut. The “stronger” team doesn’t always win and the performance of a team at any given event requires playing well at the right times, staying injury free, and perhaps a little luck. This applies to getting an Open bid (or any bid, really) or doing well at Nationals. Since we live in the real world, there are a lot of blurred lines. Depending on the divisions, I think there are often a lot of pretty similar teams in adjacent divisions. For example, I’d argue that the top half of the USA division in almost every age group at Nationals is stronger than the bottom half of the National division in that same age group. Bids only available at qualifiers are much harder to get than the ones the regions allocate. Even in Open it’s not always the strongest team on paper that wins. In 2022, Alamo 15 Premier didn’t earn an open bid at a qualifier but they applied for and got one of the at large bids. They were seeded 28th at the start of the tournament but ended up winning the 15 Open national championship. I don’t think they had the most talent or were the “best” 15s team in the country that year, but they did what they needed to do to win the national championship. https://results.advancedeventsystems.com/event/PTAwMDAwMjU5MjA90/divisions/116741/standings In terms of the Metro vs Paramount debate, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that the Paramount 16s had more talent than Metro 16 Travel? I am aware of two times that these teams played head-to-head this past season. At MAPL Hampton, Paramount 16s beat Metro 16 Travel 23-25, 25-22, 15-7. At Bid Regionals Metro 16 Travel bested Paramount 16s 25-18, 25-12. Like I said, blurred lines. Of course Metro always wants to get Open bids so congrats to Paramount on that achievement, but if your contention is that Paramount 16s going 3-7 and coming in 33rd in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 16 Travel going 9-2 and coming in 2nd in National or Paramount 15s going 1-8 and coming in 29th in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 15 Travel going 11-0 and coming in 1st in National, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. |
Anonymous
+1 This discussion is so weird. We are talking about two of the top clubs in the region, both of which have extremely talented players on their rosters. If they played against each other all the time, one would win some games, the other would win other games. Both would crush teams like MOCO, so there is really no dispute that they are better than MOCO. But that's not enough for some folks: Metro must be better than Paramount or Paramount must be better than Metro. As an outsider, I see this debate as parents of either club trying to justify their decision to play for either club. If the other club is slightly better, they see it as a personal failure. This insecurity is what fuels this never-ending discussion. Can we just agree that both clubs have very talented players, who are doing really well? Let the players celebrate a good game every time they meet on the court. Stop turning this into a toxic environment where one team or the other must win. Ten years from now the result of each individual game won't matter much. But the players will remember either the joy of playing volleyball or how toxic each of their game was. What do you want your players to remember? |
Anonymous
To say Paramount would "crush" another club and immediately tell everyone to to "Stop turning this into a toxic environment where one team or the other must win", you are projecting exactly the same behavior you are claiming is toxic. So I ask you, please "stop turning this into a toxic environment where one team or the other must win." It was good advice. |
Anonymous
When we have a game against Metro or Paramount, we know that we will lose. Knowing where you are and who you are playing against is not toxic, it's just about understanding reality. They have much stronger athletes with much longer experience. We don't have blockers that are tall enough to be effective against their hitters. Our defense rarely digs their hits. They can crush us if they play like their ice cream depends on it. At the same time, we don't want to give up as soon as we are on the court: we set a goal to take 10 points per set from them. That's how we learn to set an achievable goal. Ideally you learn to do your best without giving up. The real fun starts when you end up playing in the bracket at your own level. When I hear about a game between MOCO playing against Metro or Paramount I can predict the likely winner without being toxic. |
Anonymous
Let's look at the national rankings of the teams these Metro and Paramount 15, 16 teams played against at Nationals: Metro 15 Travel is ranked 18th nationally, and they beat 11 teams in the 15 National Division, with these national rankings: 232 W, 186 W, 100 W, 452 W, 90 W, 87 W, 108 W, 61 W, 29 W, 10 W, 47 W Paramount 15-1 is ranked 116th nationally, and their record in the 15 Open Division is: 5 L, 3 L, 26 L, 25 L, 38 L, 33 W, 39 L, 32 L, 16 L Metro 16 is ranked 39 nationally, and their record in the 16 National Division is: 214 W, 408 W, 193 W, 169 W, 17 L, 195 W, 101 W, 49 W, 58 W, 17 W, 11 L Paramount 16-1 is ranked 38 nationally, and their record in the 16 Open Division is: 1 L, 52 W, 98 L, 6 L, 7 L, 50 W, 24 L, 104 L, 184 W, 179 L It's obvious the competition in Open is tougher. I don't know the teams well, and I know the rankings are not perfect. But based on these rankings, I can make these rough observations: Metro 15 (18) underperformed because it should have been in the Open (top 36 teams). Paramount 15-1 (116) overperformed because it made into the Open. Metro 16 (39) beat teams ranked below it and one team ranked above it (17), so you can say it overperformed. Paramount 16-1 (38) made into the Open (top 36 teams), but it underperformed in the Open as it lost to a number of teams ranked below it. |
Anonymous
AES rankings mean nothing. It’s just an algorithm. USAV doesn’t even use AES rankings to seed the Open Divisions |
Anonymous
This is USAV Nationals Rankings. |
Anonymous
It's the same thing. All the USAV rankings do is eliminate results from non-USAV competition. USAV doesn't use either algorithm to seed their tournaments. The only tournament that uses these rankings to seed is CHRVA Bid Regionals, which is contentious. |