What's the benefit of Metro volleyball travel team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to think the same about Metro so I totally get OP's perspective. I actually switched to Metro eventually and i don't regret it a bit. Whether my daughter will play D1 or not, I like Metro because (I will keep it simple!)

(1) They offer quality competition: playing in highest level (OPEN division) teaches players so much stuff that clinics, lessons can't offer.
(2) Playing with best players drive my daughter to work harder
(3) Price is actually reasonable compared to other clubs. I know lots of VA clubs say their higher fees include so much and is about the same, but I was an auditor and compared the numbers--- Metro is at least $1000 cheaper with everything counted for (new uniforms, HUDL, etc)---so do your research!
(4) Metro offers the best clinic in the area. I've been to SOOOOOO many different club's clinic (MD, VA), but Metro training is the BEST hands down.

I think every club has pros and cons and grass is always greener on the other side. Do I think Metro has no negatives? No, I won't be that blinded.

But do I like Metro the best out of all the clubs in DMV? Yes. I believe Metro offers most out of any DMV clubs in the area. Everyone should do their own research and find answers for themselves. For me, Metro was the way to go.

I know not ALL players will play at a brand-name academic or volleyball college, but I know starters on the team definitely go to those schools. Metro Travel has the most # of players committed to college, so that should say something. When players are moving into DMV area, their coaches actually tell them to go check out Metro.

Thanks for reading!

I will give you that Metro’s clinics are the most intense, but there’s not a whole lot of technical skills development going on. I also know multiple parents who’s Metro kid has gone to college and been completely re-trained technically

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is D1 (UVA, Duke, UNC, Michigan) and there is D1 (schools you’ve never heard of with zero academic rigor), and there is minimal money for these schools. A lot of this region’s D1 recruits (outside of Metro) fall into the second category. In the basis that these kids won’t play pro volleyball and will need to get a job, I am surprised that parents don’t counsel them better and use their talents to get into a top D3 school (NYU, Chicago, Tufts, Johns Hopkins etc). Is it parents wanting a D1 kid for their own ego? Seems crazy to me.

Do you know this area's volleyball? You mean Metro players went to lafayette, Leigh, Towson, Navy etc falled into the second category? Metro has the best talents in this region and still got recruited into the same schools like other club.

The poster with broken English strikes again. There is some obvious envy that Metro attracts some of the best players in the region. Metro should offer this poster a coach position and all the Metro players would make it into Nebraska or Texas.

Right? And the Ohio State player they keep going on about had 27 kills in a 5 set match against Penn State last weekend. She's starting on a Big 10 team as a freshman and making a huge impact. Sounds like a real disappointment. This poster also seems to be avoiding talking about the Metro player who has been starting as a freshman for #1 ranked Pitt. Or the Metro players getting significant playing time for Louisville, BYU, or UNC who are all ranked in the top 25.

And those poor kids who have to go to Lehigh, Lafayette, or the Naval Academy - what a shame that have to suffer at these great schools while playing the sport they love.

The Metro alum that goes to Louisville never sees the floor (and she's a junior). Other CHRVA clubs have sent players to various Patriot League schools. Moreover, there are other CHRVA clubs that also currently have players who are on Top 15-25 programs.

You are missing the point. This is not about other clubs sending (or not sending) players to play in college. The poster with broken English has an obsession with the Metro coaching quality. Apparently none of these talented young athletes reach their true potential because Metro ruins them. This poster bashes Metro on every volleyball thread, even when Metro is not the topic of the discussion. I am so sick of these repetitive posts that don't contribute anything to the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Me no likey, when you say me speak in broken inglis

quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is D1 (UVA, Duke, UNC, Michigan) and there is D1 (schools you’ve never heard of with zero academic rigor), and there is minimal money for these schools. A lot of this region’s D1 recruits (outside of Metro) fall into the second category. In the basis that these kids won’t play pro volleyball and will need to get a job, I am surprised that parents don’t counsel them better and use their talents to get into a top D3 school (NYU, Chicago, Tufts, Johns Hopkins etc). Is it parents wanting a D1 kid for their own ego? Seems crazy to me.

Do you know this area's volleyball? You mean Metro players went to lafayette, Leigh, Towson, Navy etc falled into the second category? Metro has the best talents in this region and still got recruited into the same schools like other club.

The poster with broken English strikes again. There is some obvious envy that Metro attracts some of the best players in the region. Metro should offer this poster a coach position and all the Metro players would make it into Nebraska or Texas.

Right? And the Ohio State player they keep going on about had 27 kills in a 5 set match against Penn State last weekend. She's starting on a Big 10 team as a freshman and making a huge impact. Sounds like a real disappointment. This poster also seems to be avoiding talking about the Metro player who has been starting as a freshman for #1 ranked Pitt. Or the Metro players getting significant playing time for Louisville, BYU, or UNC who are all ranked in the top 25.

And those poor kids who have to go to Lehigh, Lafayette, or the Naval Academy - what a shame that have to suffer at these great schools while playing the sport they love.

The Metro alum that goes to Louisville never sees the floor (and she's a junior). Other CHRVA clubs have sent players to various Patriot League schools. Moreover, there are other CHRVA clubs that also currently have players who are on Top 15-25 programs.

You are missing the point. This is not about other clubs sending (or not sending) players to play in college. The poster with broken English has an obsession with the Metro coaching quality. Apparently none of these talented young athletes reach their true potential because Metro ruins them. This poster bashes Metro on every volleyball thread, even when Metro is not the topic of the discussion. I am so sick of these repetitive posts that don't contribute anything to the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our DD played for another ‘top 4’ CHRVA team and Metro has, hands down, the best talent. Does Paramount make more with less? No question, does VA Juniors punch above their weight on junior teams - yes, does VA Elite produce many kids who play a lot at college (ie more prepared), yes. Ultimately Metro kids go, consistently, to more, and higher ranked, D1 schools - yes. Every kid wants to play for Metro, and occasionally, sitting on the bench is ok too.

I get that when Paramount started 9 years ago they achieved success without being able to attract the best local talent, but they are well established now as the second best CHRVA club and attract phenomenal athletes. I cringe every time some compliments Paramount saying things like they "make more with less" - seems super insulting to call the the amazing athletes that play for them "less".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DD played for another ‘top 4’ CHRVA team and Metro has, hands down, the best talent. Does Paramount make more with less? No question, does VA Juniors punch above their weight on junior teams - yes, does VA Elite produce many kids who play a lot at college (ie more prepared), yes. Ultimately Metro kids go, consistently, to more, and higher ranked, D1 schools - yes. Every kid wants to play for Metro, and occasionally, sitting on the bench is ok too.

I get that when Paramount started 9 years ago they achieved success without being able to attract the best local talent, but they are well established now as the second best CHRVA club and attract phenomenal athletes. I cringe every time some compliments Paramount saying things like they "make more with less" - seems super insulting to call the the amazing athletes that play for them "less".

I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DD played for another ‘top 4’ CHRVA team and Metro has, hands down, the best talent. Does Paramount make more with less? No question, does VA Juniors punch above their weight on junior teams - yes, does VA Elite produce many kids who play a lot at college (ie more prepared), yes. Ultimately Metro kids go, consistently, to more, and higher ranked, D1 schools - yes. Every kid wants to play for Metro, and occasionally, sitting on the bench is ok too.

I get that when Paramount started 9 years ago they achieved success without being able to attract the best local talent, but they are well established now as the second best CHRVA club and attract phenomenal athletes. I cringe every time some compliments Paramount saying things like they "make more with less" - seems super insulting to call the the amazing athletes that play for them "less".

I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.

I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DD played for another ‘top 4’ CHRVA team and Metro has, hands down, the best talent. Does Paramount make more with less? No question, does VA Juniors punch above their weight on junior teams - yes, does VA Elite produce many kids who play a lot at college (ie more prepared), yes. Ultimately Metro kids go, consistently, to more, and higher ranked, D1 schools - yes. Every kid wants to play for Metro, and occasionally, sitting on the bench is ok too.

I get that when Paramount started 9 years ago they achieved success without being able to attract the best local talent, but they are well established now as the second best CHRVA club and attract phenomenal athletes. I cringe every time some compliments Paramount saying things like they "make more with less" - seems super insulting to call the the amazing athletes that play for them "less".

I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.

I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

A feat of success from two years ago that Metro in 25 years has never accomplished (even though the esteemed Club Director of Metro has been coaching 18s for the last 15 years for the club). Metro families and players will always make excuses, especially since the above poster is Metro's little pet who works as a high-profile lawyer for a major hotel chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DD played for another ‘top 4’ CHRVA team and Metro has, hands down, the best talent. Does Paramount make more with less? No question, does VA Juniors punch above their weight on junior teams - yes, does VA Elite produce many kids who play a lot at college (ie more prepared), yes. Ultimately Metro kids go, consistently, to more, and higher ranked, D1 schools - yes. Every kid wants to play for Metro, and occasionally, sitting on the bench is ok too.

I get that when Paramount started 9 years ago they achieved success without being able to attract the best local talent, but they are well established now as the second best CHRVA club and attract phenomenal athletes. I cringe every time some compliments Paramount saying things like they "make more with less" - seems super insulting to call the the amazing athletes that play for them "less".

I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.

I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

A feat of success from two years ago that Metro in 25 years has never accomplished (even though the esteemed Club Director of Metro has been coaching 18s for the last 15 years for the club). Metro families and players will always make excuses, especially since the above poster is Metro's little pet who works as a high-profile lawyer for a major hotel chain.

Are you trying to dox someone? Not sure how that supports your contention that calling Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs is not insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DD played for another ‘top 4’ CHRVA team and Metro has, hands down, the best talent. Does Paramount make more with less? No question, does VA Juniors punch above their weight on junior teams - yes, does VA Elite produce many kids who play a lot at college (ie more prepared), yes. Ultimately Metro kids go, consistently, to more, and higher ranked, D1 schools - yes. Every kid wants to play for Metro, and occasionally, sitting on the bench is ok too.

I get that when Paramount started 9 years ago they achieved success without being able to attract the best local talent, but they are well established now as the second best CHRVA club and attract phenomenal athletes. I cringe every time some compliments Paramount saying things like they "make more with less" - seems super insulting to call the the amazing athletes that play for them "less".

I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.

I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

A feat of success from two years ago that Metro in 25 years has never accomplished (even though the esteemed Club Director of Metro has been coaching 18s for the last 15 years for the club). Metro families and players will always make excuses, especially since the above poster is Metro's little pet who works as a high-profile lawyer for a major hotel chain.

Are you trying to dox someone? Not sure how that supports your contention that calling Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs is not insulting.

I didn't even want to respond to that message because it was way too weird. How do you know that an anonymous poster is the Metro's little pet who works as a high-profile lawyer for a major hotel chain? Did they use some attorney jargon that I missed? Or the PP is hallucinating in their belief that they can identify someone on an anonymous forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.
I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

A feat of success from two years ago that Metro in 25 years has never accomplished (even though the esteemed Club Director of Metro has been coaching 18s for the last 15 years for the club). Metro families and players will always make excuses

Its crazy to see these clubs and their parents fighting over who the best 18 team is. For both 18s teams last year, less than half of their players played with their club for more than 1 year. A number of those new players came into the team as starters, displacing returning players. So at the 18s age group at least its largely pointless to argue about who the best club is. Both Metro and Paramount's primary development and recruiting pipeline for their older teams is now to obtain players from other clubs.

The 2023 Paramount 18s had a great season and ended with a great accomplishment, no one can argue that. But even that team which Paramount and families hype up all the time as the example of Paramount's incredible success had less than half of the players playing with them at U16s. There were just 3 players out of 15 on the Paramount 18s from that year that played on Paramount's U15 back in 2020. BTW, Metro's #s aren't much different for their 18s teams from 2023 and earlier.

BTW, Paramount's 18s this year will have a lot of turnover with so many players leaving the 17s during the season last year. They've been recruiting incredibly hard trying to get players to switch clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.
I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

A feat of success from two years ago that Metro in 25 years has never accomplished (even though the esteemed Club Director of Metro has been coaching 18s for the last 15 years for the club). Metro families and players will always make excuses

Its crazy to see these clubs and their parents fighting over who the best 18 team is. For both 18s teams last year, less than half of their players played with their club for more than 1 year. A number of those new players came into the team as starters, displacing returning players. So at the 18s age group at least its largely pointless to argue about who the best club is. Both Metro and Paramount's primary development and recruiting pipeline for their older teams is now to obtain players from other clubs.

The 2023 Paramount 18s had a great season and ended with a great accomplishment, no one can argue that. But even that team which Paramount and families hype up all the time as the example of Paramount's incredible success had less than half of the players playing with them at U16s. There were just 3 players out of 15 on the Paramount 18s from that year that played on Paramount's U15 back in 2020. BTW, Metro's #s aren't much different for their 18s teams from 2023 and earlier.

BTW, Paramount's 18s this year will have a lot of turnover with so many players leaving the 17s during the season last year. They've been recruiting incredibly hard trying to get players to switch clubs./quote]
I agree, there is no need to brag about the best 18s team, the same way as there is no need to brag about the best [insert age group here] team. At the same time, there is no need to always point out that half of the team came from other clubs. The players decide where they want to play each season based on their own circumstances. If they make the team they want, that's their team and they are on that club's roster. Each club needs to figure out how to keep their talent from moving on to other clubs. In my books, the best team is the one that comes on top in AES systems. The club where the second team came from didn't do more with less. We are talking about very talented athletes and it's hard to predict how the game will go when they face each other. I have a lot of respect for both Metro and Paramount players: we lost every time we played against them, but they know how to win with grace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.
I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

A feat of success from two years ago that Metro in 25 years has never accomplished (even though the esteemed Club Director of Metro has been coaching 18s for the last 15 years for the club). Metro families and players will always make excuses

Its crazy to see these clubs and their parents fighting over who the best 18 team is. For both 18s teams last year, less than half of their players played with their club for more than 1 year. A number of those new players came into the team as starters, displacing returning players. So at the 18s age group at least its largely pointless to argue about who the best club is. Both Metro and Paramount's primary development and recruiting pipeline for their older teams is now to obtain players from other clubs.

The 2023 Paramount 18s had a great season and ended with a great accomplishment, no one can argue that. But even that team which Paramount and families hype up all the time as the example of Paramount's incredible success had less than half of the players playing with them at U16s. There were just 3 players out of 15 on the Paramount 18s from that year that played on Paramount's U15 back in 2020. BTW, Metro's #s aren't much different for their 18s teams from 2023 and earlier.

BTW, Paramount's 18s this year will have a lot of turnover with so many players leaving the 17s during the season last year. They've been recruiting incredibly hard trying to get players to switch clubs.

I agree, there is no need to brag about the best 18s team, the same way as there is no need to brag about the best [insert age group here] team. At the same time, there is no need to always point out that half of the team came from other clubs. The players decide where they want to play each season based on their own circumstances. If they make the team they want, that's their team and they are on that club's roster. Each club needs to figure out how to keep their talent from moving on to other clubs. In my books, the best team is the one that comes on top in AES systems. The club where the second team came from didn't do more with less. We are talking about very talented athletes and it's hard to predict how the game will go when they face each other. I have a lot of respect for both Metro and Paramount players: we lost every time we played against them, but they know how to win with grace. (Apologies for the double post - I screwed up my previous post)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.
I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

A feat of success from two years ago that Metro in 25 years has never accomplished (even though the esteemed Club Director of Metro has been coaching 18s for the last 15 years for the club). Metro families and players will always make excuses

Its crazy to see these clubs and their parents fighting over who the best 18 team is. For both 18s teams last year, less than half of their players played with their club for more than 1 year. A number of those new players came into the team as starters, displacing returning players. So at the 18s age group at least its largely pointless to argue about who the best club is. Both Metro and Paramount's primary development and recruiting pipeline for their older teams is now to obtain players from other clubs.

The 2023 Paramount 18s had a great season and ended with a great accomplishment, no one can argue that. But even that team which Paramount and families hype up all the time as the example of Paramount's incredible success had less than half of the players playing with them at U16s. There were just 3 players out of 15 on the Paramount 18s from that year that played on Paramount's U15 back in 2020. BTW, Metro's #s aren't much different for their 18s teams from 2023 and earlier.

BTW, Paramount's 18s this year will have a lot of turnover with so many players leaving the 17s during the season last year. They've been recruiting incredibly hard trying to get players to switch clubs.

I agree, there is no need to brag about the best 18s team, the same way as there is no need to brag about the best [insert age group here] team. At the same time, there is no need to always point out that half of the team came from other clubs. The players decide where they want to play each season based on their own circumstances. If they make the team they want, that's their team and they are on that club's roster. Each club needs to figure out how to keep their talent from moving on to other clubs. In my books, the best team is the one that comes on top in AES systems. The club where the second team came from didn't do more with less. We are talking about very talented athletes and it's hard to predict how the game will go when they face each other. I have a lot of respect for both Metro and Paramount players: we lost every time we played against them, but they know how to win with grace. (Apologies for the double post - I screwed up my previous post)

I agree with almost all of this. On the issue of players moving between clubs, I understood the PP's reason for raising that issue was to point out that the most successful team in Paramount's history was made up of athletes who received the majority of their training at other clubs, which is counter to the assertion that is made all the time on these forums that Paramount's success is due only to their superior training, and not the talented athletes they are able to recruit or the skills these athletes develop at other clubs prior to joining Paramount. But I very much agree with the idea that every season is a new season and players decide where they want to play among the options available to them. Moving between clubs is natural and to be expected, and the ability of a club to attract and retain the best athletes is a key factor in how successful a club can be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I would say that finishing 5th place at the 2023 18 Open Nationals (which is the all time CHRVA Record) with only 1 Power 4 player on the roster would be considered doing more with less, especially considering Metro's team that season had 7+ P4 commitments (and most of the teams with open bids in the 18 open field have upwards of 5+ Power 4 players). That team also had a 5'6" MB and a 5'7" OH. I'd also consider that doing more with less.
I assume that it's the same poster that continually cherry picks that result from 2 seasons ago to claim some sort of superiority over Metro. Congrats on the great result. How'd last year's Paramount 18s finish at USAV Nationals?

It's still insulting to call Paramount athletes "less" than those at other clubs.

A feat of success from two years ago that Metro in 25 years has never accomplished (even though the esteemed Club Director of Metro has been coaching 18s for the last 15 years for the club). Metro families and players will always make excuses

Its crazy to see these clubs and their parents fighting over who the best 18 team is. For both 18s teams last year, less than half of their players played with their club for more than 1 year. A number of those new players came into the team as starters, displacing returning players. So at the 18s age group at least its largely pointless to argue about who the best club is. Both Metro and Paramount's primary development and recruiting pipeline for their older teams is now to obtain players from other clubs.

The 2023 Paramount 18s had a great season and ended with a great accomplishment, no one can argue that. But even that team which Paramount and families hype up all the time as the example of Paramount's incredible success had less than half of the players playing with them at U16s. There were just 3 players out of 15 on the Paramount 18s from that year that played on Paramount's U15 back in 2020. BTW, Metro's #s aren't much different for their 18s teams from 2023 and earlier.

BTW, Paramount's 18s this year will have a lot of turnover with so many players leaving the 17s during the season last year. They've been recruiting incredibly hard trying to get players to switch clubs.

I agree, there is no need to brag about the best 18s team, the same way as there is no need to brag about the best [insert age group here] team. At the same time, there is no need to always point out that half of the team came from other clubs. The players decide where they want to play each season based on their own circumstances. If they make the team they want, that's their team and they are on that club's roster. Each club needs to figure out how to keep their talent from moving on to other clubs. In my books, the best team is the one that comes on top in AES systems. The club where the second team came from didn't do more with less. We are talking about very talented athletes and it's hard to predict how the game will go when they face each other. I have a lot of respect for both Metro and Paramount players: we lost every time we played against them, but they know how to win with grace. (Apologies for the double post - I screwed up my previous post)

I agree with almost all of this. On the issue of players moving between clubs, I understood the PP's reason for raising that issue was to point out that the most successful team in Paramount's history was made up of athletes who received the majority of their training at other clubs, which is counter to the assertion that is made all the time on these forums that Paramount's success is due only to their superior training, and not the talented athletes they are able to recruit or the skills these athletes develop at other clubs prior to joining Paramount. But I very much agree with the idea that every season is a new season and players decide where they want to play among the options available to them. Moving between clubs is natural and to be expected, and the ability of a club to attract and retain the best athletes is a key factor in how successful a club can be.

what's sort of fascinating about this debate is that it is very similar to the debate happening at the collegiate level re: teams that hit the transfer portal up hard vs teams who develop their teams over time. I'm reminded of John Cooke's (Nebraska coach) comment about him having developed his team with Freshman vs the opponent that they lost to (Texas) having heavily used the portal. And then he got hot in the portal himself like a week later

[Anonymous]

Our DD will try out Metro 13T this Friday, so what you said is even she got in, she may not stay in travel team in the future? I got mixed feedbacks about Metro 13T coaching staff.