Club Volleyball - rate your club pros/cons

[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.

The worst is when a player who is already committed changes clubs and then the new club takes credit for the commitment. Equally as bad is when a player is 90% done with their recruiting process then changes clubs, and then the new club takes credit for the work that was already done. This is a game that all the top clubs play; it's up to the parents to do their research and to cut through all of the chaff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The worst is when a player who is already committed changes clubs and then the new club takes credit for the commitment. Equally as bad is when a player is 90% done with their recruiting process then changes clubs, and then the new club takes credit for the work that was already done. This is a game that all the top clubs play; it's up to the parents to do their research and to cut through all of the chaff.

I love all the clubs highlighting former players on social media, particularly the ones who never, ever play…but it looks good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Paramount boosting here is nauseating.

My family is very new to all of this, and we have zero preferences or allegiances to anyone. I've read every page of this thread, and I don't see anything as "Paramount boosting". If you're talking about all the negative posts about Metro, I'll also say that in the limited competing our child has done, we have heard from many players in both travel teams and regional teams, and also had several side conversations last summer with coaches at reputable clinics, that most of what is said here about Metro is totally true. So I hope you're not equating "critical of Metro" with "Paramount boosting". Also I've learned from this thread that Paramount yells at their players a lot and is also a stressful environment.

I really am not coming away from the 16 pages so far with a view of Paramount (or Metro!) as clubs we'd want to belong to, but we're still early in the game and learning all this. We'll see how things progress if our kids do well in the younger age brackets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Paramount boosting here is nauseating.

My family is very new to all of this, and we have zero preferences or allegiances to anyone. I've read every page of this thread, and I don't see anything as "Paramount boosting". If you're talking about all the negative posts about Metro, I'll also say that in the limited competing our child has done, we have heard from many players in both travel teams and regional teams, and also had several side conversations last summer with coaches at reputable clinics, that most of what is said here about Metro is totally true. So I hope you're not equating "critical of Metro" with "Paramount boosting". Also I've learned from this thread that Paramount yells at their players a lot and is also a stressful environment.

I really am not coming away from the 16 pages so far with a view of Paramount (or Metro!) as clubs we'd want to belong to, but we're still early in the game and learning all this. We'll see how things progress if our kids do well in the younger age brackets.

+1 about the boosting. I would say there is pretty much an equal amount of love/hate being proclaimed about Metro, Paramount and VAE. Every parent/family is going to have a different experience, and everything that is being said by posters has to be taken with a grain of salt. In general, while some people in this thread obviously have strong feelings about Metro/Paramount/VAE, I would say that it's pretty clear that there is a consensus that Metro, followed closely by Paramount, are clearly the two top dogs in the region, and everybody else is a step below. Some people have strong feelings about Metro ( the poaching and the lining of Silvia's pockets), Paramount (that they're too tough, which I personally disagree with since their results speak for itself), and VAE (good recruiting, but lots of money for a lot of losing, which I personally see as a somewhat unfair characterization). However, my best recommendation to parents when deciding what club to play for is to look at all the tournament results from the previous season (those don't lie), to look at the college commitments page on each club's website), and to talk with current/former parents/players at each of these clubs to get a sense of what it's really like to play for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Paramount boosting here is nauseating.

My family is very new to all of this, and we have zero preferences or allegiances to anyone. I've read every page of this thread, and I don't see anything as "Paramount boosting". If you're talking about all the negative posts about Metro, I'll also say that in the limited competing our child has done, we have heard from many players in both travel teams and regional teams, and also had several side conversations last summer with coaches at reputable clinics, that most of what is said here about Metro is totally true. So I hope you're not equating "critical of Metro" with "Paramount boosting". Also I've learned from this thread that Paramount yells at their players a lot and is also a stressful environment.

I really am not coming away from the 16 pages so far with a view of Paramount (or Metro!) as clubs we'd want to belong to, but we're still early in the game and learning all this. We'll see how things progress if our kids do well in the younger age brackets.

I think the only thing I'll add to this is that while there have been plenty of positive and negative things said about VAE/Metro/Paramount in this thread, I don't think I have seen anybody say anything positive about VAJRS. What has happened there?

[Anonymous]

My U15 daughter has played for a Metro Regional team and we have nothing but good things to say. The coaching has been great, she has learned a lot, the girls and parents are nice, no yelling, and some of the regional teams (not saying which ones or what age group(s)) have done well in the local tournaments. In fact, I would dare say at least one Metro regional team has performed close to on par with the “elite” Metro travel team in one age group. My girl is happy, actually playing, and getting better. That’s what’s important to us! The Metro Regional teams do have some colldge-level coaching staff and we like that it’s focused on development.

[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.

Source for the bolded statement? DD's HS teammate was a VAE 15 last year and is devastated she was cut for 16s. Said half the team was cut and nobody left by choice. DD didn't even tryout there b/c went to one fall clinic and felt like there wouldn't be many openings and they would be hard to get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Source for the bolded statement? DD's HS teammate was a VAE 15 last year and is devastated she was cut for 16s. Said half the team was cut and nobody left by choice. DD didn't even tryout there b/c went to one fall clinic and felt like there wouldn't be many openings and they would be hard to get.

VAE lost their best rising 18s player (Ebo) to Metro and lost their best rising 17s player to Paramount. The rising 17s and rising 18s teams were already pretty bad, and that was with those two very strong players...

None of those are U16, which is what the bolded statement said was where the "big lumps" were

Plugged in parent here. I have not heard of any major shakeups with VAE rising 16s. I know that Metro did a lot of damage by snagging up a lot of the better talent in that age group that did not already play for them.

[Anonymous]

Lots of information in this post string . . . much of which may prove helpful. But have to chime in to ask that we all refrain from identifying specific players by name. Identifying club directors is one thing (they own a very public business, so they kind of have to take the lumps that come with that role). But the players are just out making the best choices that they can, and their decisions are their decisions . . and lest we forget -- they are young people, not adults.

This try out season was super rough, so lets not make it worse by naming kids on a discussion board that will be up long after they have moved on from this club community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of information in this post string . . . much of which may prove helpful. But have to chime in to ask that we all refrain from identifying specific players by name. Identifying club directors is one thing (they own a very public business, so they kind of have to take the lumps that come with that role). But the players are just out making the best choices that they can, and their decisions are their decisions . . and lest we forget -- they are young people, not adults.

This try out season was super rough, so lets not make it worse by naming kids on a discussion board that will be up long after they have moved on from this club community.

+1 naming of kids here is shameful

[Anonymous]

And Paramount lost their best player ever to Metro 17 this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Paramount lost their best player ever to Metro 17 this year.

Cue the Paramount boosters….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Paramount lost their best player ever to Metro 17 this year.

Yep, a player they had since U13. This tryout process this season was crazy. With players leaving clubs they'd been at since such a young age, this was crazy this year. Wish it wasn't so cutthroat and hostile in our area!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Paramount lost their best player ever to Metro 17 this year.

When will everybody in this crazy volleyball world and the competitive sports world learn that there is no loyalty in high-level sports. This applies to any level (club, high school, college, etc.). This also applies to clubs. Clubs only have loyalty to players until somebody better walks into the gym.

[Anonymous]

Volleyball Tryouts season always brings out the worst in people.