Club Volleyball - rate your club pros/cons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club volleyball at the top level is a ruthless sport. I know of plenty kids who have been cut by metro travel at 14&15 age groups. It’s when ‘potential’ needs to start being realized. College coaches are x100 more ruthless than anything Metro can throw at you.

That said, Metro love poaching talent from their rivals, and plenty of them sit on the bench all season.

+1 Metro poaches because they don't do a good job of developing players. They rely on just poaching the best athletes whom other clubs have developed. And, as the PP mentioned, often times some of these kids they poach end up standing on the sidelines all season because Metro will put 15 players on their roster for financial purposes and so that they can hog all the talent to weaken their local competition. Their grip in the area has somewhat been loosened because some (not a lot, but some) of these really talented athletes and players have decided to go the Paramount route instead and have actually beaten Metro Travel teams while playing for Paramount.

I don't think either of my girls are tall enough or will be tall enough to be heavily recruited by any D1 travel team in the near future, but reading all of this makes me SO HAPPY that we turned down Metro regional in this last round of tryouts. We were offered a spot after waiting in that long line, and we were thrilled, but so glad we went with our gut. Time will tell how good or bad the decision we did make was, but we already feel that much better about it because even if our kid had had a good season, there's no way we want to be part of this toxic environment. And on the apparently incredibly remote chance our kid was ever offered a spot on Metro travel in the coming years (more because of height than skill)... I sure hope we turn it down.

I think you made a wise choice. I don’t know if a single case in the past 10 yrs where a player has moved from metro regional to metro travel. They just poach everyone’s best players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the rankings MVSA is much better than MEVC and MOCO. Not sure if your DD should stay with MVSA once she gets older.

MVSA is a more established organization and has been around for several decades. With the larger number of teams and its history, MVSA certainly attracts greater interest and a larger number of girls who try out. MVSA teams, especially their 1's teams, are generally more competitive, when compared to MEVC and MOCO. At the same time, it seems MEVC and MOCO appear to be more willing to take newer players and girls who are less experienced. I cannot speak for MOCO but the spirit of MEVC, from my point of view, is to nurture the development of players and the joy of the sport. It does not mean the players I've seen are not willing to be competitive but I think the more competitive players are attracted to other clubs. I suppose it is a matter of where your child is in skillset as well as mindset that determines what club may be the ideal fit.

All are good clubs, but they are different in a lot of respects. There are generally more competitive players at MVSA and MOCO--their 1s teams are much closer to each other than they are to MEVC--and both clubs tend to have players that can compete for spots on the most competitive travel teams in the area. MVSA tends to get a good set off players early and keep them until U15 or so, so there are very few spots open to new players. They do run a rec league, but few players above U12 get onto teams.

MEVC is new, and generally has a development approach, although their teams are improving as they have more players come through the program. They do a good job of developing players, but sometimes struggle to hold on to them as they progress because their top teams generally don't compete at the higher levels of club. MOCO has been around a bit longer, and has more players coming through their development programs like clinics, summer and fall programs. They also put more of those players onto their lower teams. Their top teams shifted to the upper levels of competition over the past few years.

Since MVSA has been around so long, they started when there were few other clubs in the area. They historically had a large pool of players to pull from. As other clubs started--MOCO, then MEVC, then several others--the pool has shifted a lot, especially at the younger ages. Remember that it takes 8 years to take a group of players from U11-U18, so competitiveness is hard to measure until the clubs have had a chance to get established and develop players, and neither MOCO or MEVC have been around that long.

Regarding rankings, AES has a lot of issues, especially when comparing 1s travel teams to 2s regional teams. 1s travel teams from MVSA and MOCO are competing in harder tournaments where staying above .500 generally says your team is decent. That same team competing in a local regional tournament would likely win all their matches, or close to it, and could probably do so against older competition. You would need to look at MVSA, MOCO and MEVC head-to-head records to get a real comparison. I would say MVSA 1s->MOCO 1s>MVSA 2s>MOCO 2s>MEVC 1s, but each age group and team could be different.

This was super super helpful, thank you very much!

And I too echo my appreciation for this explanation! Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Has anybody heard anything about how the U15-U18 tryouts shook out? Any surprises from the top dogs (Metro, Paramount)? Did any clubs make a big jump or a sharp decline? I heard Jrs and VAE took big lumps this weekend, and that Metro and Paramount each got stronger.

For those who tried out for Tier 3/4 clubs, how was the tryout process? Did you have to do tryouts at a lot of different clubs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody heard anything about how the U15-U18 tryouts shook out? Any surprises from the top dogs (Metro, Paramount)? Did any clubs make a big jump or a sharp decline? I heard Jrs and VAE took big lumps this weekend, and that Metro and Paramount each got stronger.

For those who tried out for Tier 3/4 clubs, how was the tryout process? Did you have to do tryouts at a lot of different clubs?

What do you mean “big lumps”? We were at VAE 17s tryout, among others, and it was mobbed. No offer but a lot of kids there. Didn’t try juniors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody heard anything about how the U15-U18 tryouts shook out? Any surprises from the top dogs (Metro, Paramount)? Did any clubs make a big jump or a sharp decline? I heard Jrs and VAE took big lumps this weekend, and that Metro and Paramount each got stronger.

For those who tried out for Tier 3/4 clubs, how was the tryout process? Did you have to do tryouts at a lot of different clubs?

What do you mean “big lumps”? We were at VAE 17s tryout, among others, and it was mobbed. No offer but a lot of kids there. Didn’t try juniors.

+1. I'm going to call it out. There is clearly an anti-VAE person/people on this thread from the beginning. We get it - your kid plays for Metro or Paramount and you need to keep up the boosting for whatever reason. VAE is still an outstanding club, that is just different from the others. Year after year VAE has many of the top HS players in the region, including last year's Gatorade Player of the Year (who played there 13-18), and still has a 100% college recruitment track record. Plenty of fair criticism about the way they do things esp at younger age groups. Agree with all that. But if you think they are hurting for talent at 16 - 18, you are just wrong. Quite a few sad kids this weekend who got cut from last season and alternates waiting for a phone call. VAE is doing their thing and doing just fine.

[Anonymous]

Sylvia is ruining Metro. Barry created a great club and she is ruining it. She created the regional teams to line her pockets.

Yes, we have family that played Metro travel, so we do know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club volleyball at the top level is a ruthless sport. I know of plenty kids who have been cut by metro travel at 14&15 age groups. It’s when ‘potential’ needs to start being realized. College coaches are x100 more ruthless than anything Metro can throw at you.

That said, Metro love poaching talent from their rivals, and plenty of them sit on the bench all season.

+1 Metro poaches because they don't do a good job of developing players. They rely on just poaching the best athletes whom other clubs have developed. And, as the PP mentioned, often times some of these kids they poach end up standing on the sidelines all season because Metro will put 15 players on their roster for financial purposes and so that they can hog all the talent to weaken their local competition. Their grip in the area has somewhat been loosened because some (not a lot, but some) of these really talented athletes and players have decided to go the Paramount route instead and have actually beaten Metro Travel teams while playing for Paramount.

I don't think either of my girls are tall enough or will be tall enough to be heavily recruited by any D1 travel team in the near future, but reading all of this makes me SO HAPPY that we turned down Metro regional in this last round of tryouts. We were offered a spot after waiting in that long line, and we were thrilled, but so glad we went with our gut. Time will tell how good or bad the decision we did make was, but we already feel that much better about it because even if our kid had had a good season, there's no way we want to be part of this toxic environment. And on the apparently incredibly remote chance our kid was ever offered a spot on Metro travel in the coming years (more because of height than skill)... I sure hope we turn it down.

I think you made a wise choice. I don’t know if a single case in the past 10 yrs where a player has moved from metro regional to metro travel. They just poach everyone’s best players.

Several of their current older travel players (17/18) got their start with Metro East and made the travel team at 13/14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody heard anything about how the U15-U18 tryouts shook out? Any surprises from the top dogs (Metro, Paramount)? Did any clubs make a big jump or a sharp decline? I heard Jrs and VAE took big lumps this weekend, and that Metro and Paramount each got stronger.

For those who tried out for Tier 3/4 clubs, how was the tryout process? Did you have to do tryouts at a lot of different clubs?

What do you mean “big lumps”? We were at VAE 17s tryout, among others, and it was mobbed. No offer but a lot of kids there. Didn’t try juniors.

+1. I'm going to call it out. There is clearly an anti-VAE person/people on this thread from the beginning. We get it - your kid plays for Metro or Paramount and you need to keep up the boosting for whatever reason. VAE is still an outstanding club, that is just different from the others. Year after year VAE has many of the top HS players in the region, including last year's Gatorade Player of the Year (who played there 13-18), and still has a 100% college recruitment track record. Plenty of fair criticism about the way they do things esp at younger age groups. Agree with all that. But if you think they are hurting for talent at 16 - 18, you are just wrong. Quite a few sad kids this weekend who got cut from last season and alternates waiting for a phone call. VAE is doing their thing and doing just fine.

Not the OP about VAE, and agree that some people have a biased view. Objectively though, at U16 VAE had some big turnover, some players leaving for other clubs by the players choice, along with some leaving by the clubs choice. Of course they have a list of new players that want to come in and a waitlist, but they aren’t unique there—every good club has waitlists a mile long this year.

VAE has a great recruiting processes, but one note about recruiting stats that applies to all clubs: if you cut a player that doesn’t have a chance to play in and/or does want to, then the club doesn’t offer them. If you replace them with a player already getting recruited or expected to, then the new club gets the credit when they sign. VAE has a better track record than some clubs of developing players over multiple years, but all the top clubs play this game. I wish we had a stat on how many players from U15-U18 who stayed with the club all 4 years were recruited, which would really tell us if a club is good at developing players, or just good at recruiting players who were developed from other clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sylvia is ruining Metro. Barry created a great club and she is ruining it. She created the regional teams to line her pockets.

Yes, we have family that played Metro travel, so we do know.

To be fair, the regional teams existed when Barry was running the program (at least North, Central, and South). Don't remember when East started, but it was later and might be after Silvia bought the club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody heard anything about how the U15-U18 tryouts shook out? Any surprises from the top dogs (Metro, Paramount)? Did any clubs make a big jump or a sharp decline? I heard Jrs and VAE took big lumps this weekend, and that Metro and Paramount each got stronger.

For those who tried out for Tier 3/4 clubs, how was the tryout process? Did you have to do tryouts at a lot of different clubs?

What do you mean “big lumps”? We were at VAE 17s tryout, among others, and it was mobbed. No offer but a lot of kids there. Didn’t try juniors.

+1. I'm going to call it out. There is clearly an anti-VAE person/people on this thread from the beginning. We get it - your kid plays for Metro or Paramount and you need to keep up the boosting for whatever reason. VAE is still an outstanding club, that is just different from the others. Year after year VAE has many of the top HS players in the region, including last year's Gatorade Player of the Year (who played there 13-18), and still has a 100% college recruitment track record. Plenty of fair criticism about the way they do things esp at younger age groups. Agree with all that. But if you think they are hurting for talent at 16 - 18, you are just wrong. Quite a few sad kids this weekend who got cut from last season and alternates waiting for a phone call. VAE is doing their thing and doing just fine.

There’s a reason a lot of kids developed at VAE play as freshmen at college - they are technically sound. That’s not the same for a lot of others. VAE has many flaws, but developing players technically is not one of them.

Not the OP about VAE, and agree that some people have a biased view. Objectively though, at U16 VAE had some big turnover, some players leaving for other clubs by the players choice, along with some leaving by the clubs choice. Of course they have a list of new players that want to come in and a waitlist, but they aren’t unique there—every good club has waitlists a mile long this year.

VAE has a great recruiting processes, but one note about recruiting stats that applies to all clubs: if you cut a player that doesn’t have a chance to play in and/or does want to, then the club doesn’t offer them. If you replace them with a player already getting recruited or expected to, then the new club gets the credit when they sign. VAE has a better track record than some clubs of developing players over multiple years, but all the top clubs play this game. I wish we had a stat on how many players from U15-U18 who stayed with the club all 4 years were recruited, which would really tell us if a club is good at developing players, or just good at recruiting players who were developed from other clubs.

[Anonymous]

The Paramount boosting here is nauseating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody heard anything about how the U15-U18 tryouts shook out? Any surprises from the top dogs (Metro, Paramount)? Did any clubs make a big jump or a sharp decline? I heard Jrs and VAE took big lumps this weekend, and that Metro and Paramount each got stronger.

For those who tried out for Tier 3/4 clubs, how was the tryout process? Did you have to do tryouts at a lot of different clubs?

What do you mean “big lumps”? We were at VAE 17s tryout, among others, and it was mobbed. No offer but a lot of kids there. Didn’t try juniors.

+1. I'm going to call it out. There is clearly an anti-VAE person/people on this thread from the beginning. We get it - your kid plays for Metro or Paramount and you need to keep up the boosting for whatever reason. VAE is still an outstanding club, that is just different from the others. Year after year VAE has many of the top HS players in the region, including last year's Gatorade Player of the Year (who played there 13-18), and still has a 100% college recruitment track record. Plenty of fair criticism about the way they do things esp at younger age groups. Agree with all that. But if you think they are hurting for talent at 16 - 18, you are just wrong. Quite a few sad kids this weekend who got cut from last season and alternates waiting for a phone call. VAE is doing their thing and doing just fine.

I agree that there is an anti-VAE person on this board. However, at the same time, from my experience in the club circuit, 90% of the things that the anti-VAE people in this thread are saying about VAE is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sylvia is ruining Metro. Barry created a great club and she is ruining it. She created the regional teams to line her pockets.

Yes, we have family that played Metro travel, so we do know.

+1. Barry is one of the most genuinely kind people in the volleyball world. It is so sad that he is battling cancer. Everybody knows that Sylvia uses the regional teams to line her pockets, and that she has built her program through the poaching of other clubs' players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club volleyball at the top level is a ruthless sport. I know of plenty kids who have been cut by metro travel at 14&15 age groups. It’s when ‘potential’ needs to start being realized. College coaches are x100 more ruthless than anything Metro can throw at you.

That said, Metro love poaching talent from their rivals, and plenty of them sit on the bench all season.

+1 Metro poaches because they don't do a good job of developing players. They rely on just poaching the best athletes whom other clubs have developed. And, as the PP mentioned, often times some of these kids they poach end up standing on the sidelines all season because Metro will put 15 players on their roster for financial purposes and so that they can hog all the talent to weaken their local competition. Their grip in the area has somewhat been loosened because some (not a lot, but some) of these really talented athletes and players have decided to go the Paramount route instead and have actually beaten Metro Travel teams while playing for Paramount.

I don't think either of my girls are tall enough or will be tall enough to be heavily recruited by any D1 travel team in the near future, but reading all of this makes me SO HAPPY that we turned down Metro regional in this last round of tryouts. We were offered a spot after waiting in that long line, and we were thrilled, but so glad we went with our gut. Time will tell how good or bad the decision we did make was, but we already feel that much better about it because even if our kid had had a good season, there's no way we want to be part of this toxic environment. And on the apparently incredibly remote chance our kid was ever offered a spot on Metro travel in the coming years (more because of height than skill)... I sure hope we turn it down.

I think you made a wise choice. I don’t know if a single case in the past 10 yrs where a player has moved from metro regional to metro travel. They just poach everyone’s best players.

Several of their current older travel players (17/18) got their start with Metro East and made the travel team at 13/14.

Metro 12 East players routinely make 13 travel because Metro does not have a "travel" U12 team. However, it is very rare for a player on a U13 or older Metro Regional team to ever make the jump to a travel team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody heard anything about how the U15-U18 tryouts shook out? Any surprises from the top dogs (Metro, Paramount)? Did any clubs make a big jump or a sharp decline? I heard Jrs and VAE took big lumps this weekend, and that Metro and Paramount each got stronger.

For those who tried out for Tier 3/4 clubs, how was the tryout process? Did you have to do tryouts at a lot of different clubs?

What do you mean “big lumps”? We were at VAE 17s tryout, among others, and it was mobbed. No offer but a lot of kids there. Didn’t try juniors.

+1. I'm going to call it out. There is clearly an anti-VAE person/people on this thread from the beginning. We get it - your kid plays for Metro or Paramount and you need to keep up the boosting for whatever reason. VAE is still an outstanding club, that is just different from the others. Year after year VAE has many of the top HS players in the region, including last year's Gatorade Player of the Year (who played there 13-18), and still has a 100% college recruitment track record. Plenty of fair criticism about the way they do things esp at younger age groups. Agree with all that. But if you think they are hurting for talent at 16 - 18, you are just wrong. Quite a few sad kids this weekend who got cut from last season and alternates waiting for a phone call. VAE is doing their thing and doing just fine.

Not the OP about VAE, and agree that some people have a biased view. Objectively though, at U16 VAE had some big turnover, some players leaving for other clubs by the players choice, along with some leaving by the clubs choice. Of course they have a list of new players that want to come in and a waitlist, but they aren’t unique there—every good club has waitlists a mile long this year.

VAE has a great recruiting processes, but one note about recruiting stats that applies to all clubs: if you cut a player that doesn’t have a chance to play in and/or does want to, then the club doesn’t offer them. If you replace them with a player already getting recruited or expected to, then the new club gets the credit when they sign. VAE has a better track record than some clubs of developing players over multiple years, but all the top clubs play this game. I wish we had a stat on how many players from U15-U18 who stayed with the club all 4 years were recruited, which would really tell us if a club is good at developing players, or just good at recruiting players who were developed from other clubs.

+1