Volleyball club- recap and thoughts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro 16, with almost all talented local players, is one of the two winless teams out of 36 open division teams in gjnc pool play(first 2 days). Chrva volleyball a long way to go.

But yet almost every one of those players will go D1. All star individuals vs teams that have been playing together for years.

Given 340+ D1 colleges, these talented should been able to get in even they go to other clubs in the region. The current ranking wasted these talents.

[Anonymous]

FPYCparent wrote:I'm still wrapping my brain around the usual top performers within CHRVA, but do Metro and Paramount have that much turnover year after year? In other words, haven't some of these local teams been together for awhile? (My casual observation is that parents and players from each club seem to know each other fairly well ... as if they've all known each other for more than a few years.)

In any event, it is a bit humbling to see how CHRVA teams are fairing thus far in Las Vegas:

16 Open - Metro is 0-5 (last in pool of 6)
16 National - Paramount is 2-3 (3rd in pool of 6)
16 American - MVSA is 0-6 (last in pool of 8)

17 Open - no CHRVA teams
17 National - Metro and VA Elite are both 3-2 in their respective pools (Metro is 4th out of 6 in pool, while VAE is 3rd out of 6 in pool)
17 American - Paramount 6-0 and will play another 6-0 team to complete pool play in the morning

The 16s and 17s ages had the most player movement between clubs we've seen in a long time. That resulted in movement at all of the next tier clubs in the local DC area. There were a lot of reasons including college recruiting, promises of playing time, coaching changes, aggressive recruiting, etc. It was also a function of the crazy decision CHRVA made to have every age group try out on the same weekend. The result was a bunch of good teams, but no incredible teams and a lot of teams where its been about the individual rather than developing team cohesion.

Another issue is our bid tournament process -- we put way too much value in performance on a single day rather the finding the teams that are consistent over a season. USAV Nationals is a long tournament that requires depth and consistency much more than other tournaments, but our tournament focuses on who was hot on a single day. We'd be better served moving to the power league format a lot of other regions have adopted.

FYI, the players all know each other because the number of players on top teams is pretty small -- if you take the top 10 teams in each age group, its only 100-120 players -- and most of them play with each other in high school.

[Anonymous]

While I don't expect anyone to be checking DCUM from Vegas, but has anyone heard or reported if it is "very hot," "very cold," or "quite comfortable" inside the courts venue at Mandalay Bay? I'm still preparing for next week and don't know if should pack a pair or two of jeans and a hoodie/pullover. I know I won't be need these items while outside! I just don't want to be unnecessarily cold inside and suitcase space is at a premium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I don't expect anyone to be checking DCUM from Vegas, but has anyone heard or reported if it is "very hot," "very cold," or "quite comfortable" inside the courts venue at Mandalay Bay? I'm still preparing for next week and don't know if should pack a pair or two of jeans and a hoodie/pullover. I know I won't be need these items while outside! I just don't want to be unnecessarily cold inside and suitcase space is at a premium.

Super hot outside. Inside the convention center, however, is more mild. I know most convention centers are usually freezing, but it doesn’t seem like they are blasting the AC like usual

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

FPYCparent wrote:I'm still wrapping my brain around the usual top performers within CHRVA, but do Metro and Paramount have that much turnover year after year? In other words, haven't some of these local teams been together for awhile? (My casual observation is that parents and players from each club seem to know each other fairly well ... as if they've all known each other for more than a few years.)

In any event, it is a bit humbling to see how CHRVA teams are fairing thus far in Las Vegas:

16 Open - Metro is 0-5 (last in pool of 6)
16 National - Paramount is 2-3 (3rd in pool of 6)
16 American - MVSA is 0-6 (last in pool of 8)

17 Open - no CHRVA teams
17 National - Metro and VA Elite are both 3-2 in their respective pools (Metro is 4th out of 6 in pool, while VAE is 3rd out of 6 in pool)
17 American - Paramount 6-0 and will play another 6-0 team to complete pool play in the morning

The 16s and 17s ages had the most player movement between clubs we've seen in a long time. That resulted in movement at all of the next tier clubs in the local DC area. There were a lot of reasons including college recruiting, promises of playing time, coaching changes, aggressive recruiting, etc. It was also a function of the crazy decision CHRVA made to have every age group try out on the same weekend. The result was a bunch of good teams, but no incredible teams and a lot of teams where its been about the individual rather than developing team cohesion.

Another issue is our bid tournament process -- we put way too much value in performance on a single day rather the finding the teams that are consistent over a season. USAV Nationals is a long tournament that requires depth and consistency much more than other tournaments, but our tournament focuses on who was hot on a single day. We'd be better served moving to the power league format a lot of other regions have adopted.

FYI, the players all know each other because the number of players on top teams is pretty small -- if you take the top 10 teams in each age group, its only 100-120 players -- and most of them play with each other in high school.

I don't think the movement on Metro Travel teams is much worse (if at all) than other less competitive teams. Using the current 17s team as an example, 7 of the 15 girls they started the season with on the roster had been on the team since 13 Travel. Another 5 didn't start with Metro at 13s but have been on the team for 2 or more seasons. They picked up 3 new players this year. One from Paramount, one from VA Juniors, and one from CEVA, but they were simply added to the roster. Two players from last year's 16 Travel played for 18 Travel this year, mostly to make up for some holes left in the roster from several key players who left to go to college early. No one from last year's 16 Travel was cut or moved to another club.

As to the idea of doing a power league format instead of a one-day bid regional tournament, I don't think this would result in any meaningful difference in the teams that rise to the top. Again using 17s an an example, I think it's pretty clear for this age group that Metro, VA Elite, Paramount, and Blue Ridge are the top teams in CHRVA. VA Juniors, MD Juniors, Premier, and MVSA are the next tier, and then it gets kind of hard to say after that. But forcing these teams to play each other within the region isn't going to do anything to raise the level of CHRVA teams against the rest of the country - playing in Open at National Qualifiers is the way to get exposure to the top teams in the country. Metro, Paramount, and VA Elite all went to 3 or 4 qualifiers playing in the Open division. While none of them earned an Open bid, playing at those tournaments helps them improve far more than playing each other week after week vying for a National bid.

And playing at more qualifiers gets the players more exposure to college coaches - 11 players from 17 Travel are committed to D1 schools. VA Elite 17s has 4 D1 commits so far. Paramount 17s have 3 D1 commits so far. I think Blue Ridge and MVSA have at least one D1 commitment. I think the reasons for this are two-fold. Obviously, the most talented players in CHRVA tend to end up at these clubs. Layer that with the clubs having more recruiting infrastructure, reputation, and relationships with college coaches, and it is easier for these players to be noticed. Of course players from other clubs will commit to play D1 volleyball, but it will require more work from them to get on the radar of college coaches.

[Anonymous]

As to the idea of doing a power league format instead of a one-day bid regional tournament, I don't think this would result in any meaningful difference in the teams that rise to the top. Again using 17s an an example, I think it's pretty clear for this age group that Metro, VA Elite, Paramount, and Blue Ridge are the top teams in CHRVA...And playing at more qualifiers gets the players more exposure to college coaches - 11 players from 17 Travel are committed to D1 schools. VA Elite 17s has 4 D1 commits so far.

If your goal is to get a player recruited, then there's no reason to care much about the region as a whole. But the discussion is why CHRVA isn't doing as well as expected -- and a lot of it tracks back to exactly the reasoning you gave above -- a focus on recruiting rather than competitive improvement as a whole. Those regions all have more D1 players across their teams, so the power league doesn't hurt recruiting at all. They still attend qualifiers. What the other regions have realized is that there is no value in having only 3-4 "best" teams and then having the rest of the regions clubs be feeder systems into those teams. Instead, they focus on having 10-12 competitive teams.

There's always a chance that one of our teams catches lightning in a bottle and does great at nationals, but if we want consistent performances every year then the focus would need to switch to developing many, many more players than the 15 you cited above. For those families currently in the recruiting cycle and clubs who market heavily based on recruiting there are lots of reasons not to do this, so there is little to no interest in making meaningful structural improvements to the way the region develops a broad base of talent.

But forcing these teams to play each other within the region isn't going to do anything to raise the level of CHRVA teams against the rest of the country - playing in Open at National Qualifiers is the way to get exposure to the top teams in the country. Metro, Paramount, and VA Elite all went to 3 or 4 qualifiers playing in the Open division. While none of them earned an Open bid, playing at those tournaments helps them improve far more than playing each other week after week vying for a National bid.

Let's agree to disagree on that. If your DD plays for one of those clubs, then you likely believe this statement. But its not relevant to improving the region as a whole.

Compared to other regions, too many of the "top" teams take too many players, b/c there is a belief around DC that if you don't play for the top teams, you can't get recruited. Coming from a region with many more D1 recruits, there was a different mentality: you develop the fastest by playing a large number of meaningful points in tournaments and by maximizing touches in practice. As a result, team sizes were smaller so more players play in tournaments and more players get exposure to coaches at those tournaments -- and more get recruited. For comparison, here's the team sizes from the AAU Open finals this year:
16: Mintonette-11, Skyline-13
17: Tribe-11, Sports Performance-9

For comparison, here's our USAV national team sizes:
16: Paramount-15
17: Metro-15, VA Elite-13

And the players on the AAU teams played significant minutes and points. Now head to BallerTV and count how many players on our teams barely see the court during a match this week. There is very little competitive benefit if you never see the court, play garbage time points or get in for just a few rotations. You'd be better off getting extra hours in the practice gym. And the # of players also impacts the # of touches players get in practice -- especially in competitive gameplay drills where research has shown the most substantial player development occurs.

Here's a fun game -- head to AES and sort any of the top regions like NO, FL, DE, HA by national rank for virtually any age group. Then check the top 5 teams for how many players are on their roster. CHRVA's average is 14! players, and that's with Blue Ridge only taking 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Metro, VA Elite, Paramount, and Blue Ridge are the top teams in CHRVA. VA Juniors, MD Juniors, Premier, and MVSA are the next tier, and then it gets kind of hard to say after that.

Depends heavily on the age group and the year. This year, At 12s? Its MVSA, Blue Ridge, MD Jrs, Paramount and MOCO. At 13s? Those plus Metro, VA Juniors. At 14s? Metro, MVSA, Blue Ridge, Columbia, Paramount, MOCO, VA Jrs, LEVBC, MD Jrs.

At 15 the diversity of clubs disappears. This years 15U had 5 teams ranked top 100, and no others between 100-300. At 16 it was 2 teams -- Metro and Blue Ridge, and then a huge drop off. At 17s there were 4 teams in the top 115 (Metro, Blue Ridge, Paramount, VA Elite), and then a big drop from there. And at 18s it was 1 team -- Metro.

Also, congrats to Paramount 17s for making the American gold bracket tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As to the idea of doing a power league format instead of a one-day bid regional tournament, I don't think this would result in any meaningful difference in the teams that rise to the top. Again using 17s an an example, I think it's pretty clear for this age group that Metro, VA Elite, Paramount, and Blue Ridge are the top teams in CHRVA...And playing at more qualifiers gets the players more exposure to college coaches - 11 players from 17 Travel are committed to D1 schools. VA Elite 17s has 4 D1 commits so far.

If your goal is to get a player recruited, then there's no reason to care much about the region as a whole. But the discussion is why CHRVA isn't doing as well as expected -- and a lot of it tracks back to exactly the reasoning you gave above -- a focus on recruiting rather than competitive improvement as a whole. Those regions all have more D1 players across their teams, so the power league doesn't hurt recruiting at all. They still attend qualifiers. What the other regions have realized is that there is no value in having only 3-4 "best" teams and then having the rest of the regions clubs be feeder systems into those teams. Instead, they focus on having 10-12 competitive teams.

There's always a chance that one of our teams catches lightning in a bottle and does great at nationals, but if we want consistent performances every year then the focus would need to switch to developing many, many more players than the 15 you cited above. For those families currently in the recruiting cycle and clubs who market heavily based on recruiting there are lots of reasons not to do this, so there is little to no interest in making meaningful structural improvements to the way the region develops a broad base of talent.

But forcing these teams to play each other within the region isn't going to do anything to raise the level of CHRVA teams against the rest of the country - playing in Open at National Qualifiers is the way to get exposure to the top teams in the country. Metro, Paramount, and VA Elite all went to 3 or 4 qualifiers playing in the Open division. While none of them earned an Open bid, playing at those tournaments helps them improve far more than playing each other week after week vying for a National bid.

Let's agree to disagree on that. If your DD plays for one of those clubs, then you likely believe this statement. But its not relevant to improving the region as a whole.

Compared to other regions, too many of the "top" teams take too many players, b/c there is a belief around DC that if you don't play for the top teams, you can't get recruited. Coming from a region with many more D1 recruits, there was a different mentality: you develop the fastest by playing a large number of meaningful points in tournaments and by maximizing touches in practice. As a result, team sizes were smaller so more players play in tournaments and more players get exposure to coaches at those tournaments -- and more get recruited. For comparison, here's the team sizes from the AAU Open finals this year:
16: Mintonette-11, Skyline-13
17: Tribe-11, Sports Performance-9

For comparison, here's our USAV national team sizes:
16: Paramount-15
17: Metro-15, VA Elite-13

And the players on the AAU teams played significant minutes and points. Now head to BallerTV and count how many players on our teams barely see the court during a match this week. There is very little competitive benefit if you never see the court, play garbage time points or get in for just a few rotations. You'd be better off getting extra hours in the practice gym. And the # of players also impacts the # of touches players get in practice -- especially in competitive gameplay drills where research has shown the most substantial player development occurs.

Here's a fun game -- head to AES and sort any of the top regions like NO, FL, DE, HA by national rank for virtually any age group. Then check the top 5 teams for how many players are on their roster. CHRVA's average is 14! players, and that's with Blue Ridge only taking 10.

That's what the other coach said that so many talents got wasted by few clubs and even these players who have most play time not developing fully to their potential because of lacking good coaching. Even 'top' chrva teams got in lower half after 2 days of pool play and winless.

[Anonymous]

A lot of CHRVA struggles at national level per a coach I talked to from the Midwest last year is that there are mostly first generation players. On his team, he said “ most of their mommas played and so did their mommas mommas”.

Also he said his favorite team from CHRVA was Blue Ridge because most play beach.

And I agree too many players per team.

Hard to believe no 17s made open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As to the idea of doing a power league format instead of a one-day bid regional tournament, I don't think this would result in any meaningful difference in the teams that rise to the top. Again using 17s an an example, I think it's pretty clear for this age group that Metro, VA Elite, Paramount, and Blue Ridge are the top teams in CHRVA...And playing at more qualifiers gets the players more exposure to college coaches - 11 players from 17 Travel are committed to D1 schools. VA Elite 17s has 4 D1 commits so far.

If your goal is to get a player recruited, then there's no reason to care much about the region as a whole. But the discussion is why CHRVA isn't doing as well as expected -- and a lot of it tracks back to exactly the reasoning you gave above -- a focus on recruiting rather than competitive improvement as a whole. Those regions all have more D1 players across their teams, so the power league doesn't hurt recruiting at all. They still attend qualifiers. What the other regions have realized is that there is no value in having only 3-4 "best" teams and then having the rest of the regions clubs be feeder systems into those teams. Instead, they focus on having 10-12 competitive teams.

There's always a chance that one of our teams catches lightning in a bottle and does great at nationals, but if we want consistent performances every year then the focus would need to switch to developing many, many more players than the 15 you cited above. For those families currently in the recruiting cycle and clubs who market heavily based on recruiting there are lots of reasons not to do this, so there is little to no interest in making meaningful structural improvements to the way the region develops a broad base of talent.

But forcing these teams to play each other within the region isn't going to do anything to raise the level of CHRVA teams against the rest of the country - playing in Open at National Qualifiers is the way to get exposure to the top teams in the country. Metro, Paramount, and VA Elite all went to 3 or 4 qualifiers playing in the Open division. While none of them earned an Open bid, playing at those tournaments helps them improve far more than playing each other week after week vying for a National bid.

Let's agree to disagree on that. If your DD plays for one of those clubs, then you likely believe this statement. But its not relevant to improving the region as a whole.

Compared to other regions, too many of the "top" teams take too many players, b/c there is a belief around DC that if you don't play for the top teams, you can't get recruited. Coming from a region with many more D1 recruits, there was a different mentality: you develop the fastest by playing a large number of meaningful points in tournaments and by maximizing touches in practice. As a result, team sizes were smaller so more players play in tournaments and more players get exposure to coaches at those tournaments -- and more get recruited. For comparison, here's the team sizes from the AAU Open finals this year:
16: Mintonette-11, Skyline-13
17: Tribe-11, Sports Performance-9

For comparison, here's our USAV national team sizes:
16: Paramount-15
17: Metro-15, VA Elite-13

And the players on the AAU teams played significant minutes and points. Now head to BallerTV and count how many players on our teams barely see the court during a match this week. There is very little competitive benefit if you never see the court, play garbage time points or get in for just a few rotations. You'd be better off getting extra hours in the practice gym. And the # of players also impacts the # of touches players get in practice -- especially in competitive gameplay drills where research has shown the most substantial player development occurs.

Here's a fun game -- head to AES and sort any of the top regions like NO, FL, DE, HA by national rank for virtually any age group. Then check the top 5 teams for how many players are on their roster. CHRVA's average is 14! players, and that's with Blue Ridge only taking 10.

The numbers of players on a roster is an interesting observation, but I think it's more a function of there not being enough clubs with the demonstrated track record of getting decent results nationally and getting many players recruited to play collegiately than it is a case of Metro, Paramount, or VA Elite hoarding the best players so that other clubs can't have them. For the individual athlete (or their parents) who wants to play at the highest level possible and potentially in college, as of today there are only 3-4 CHRVA clubs that are really in the discussion. I don't really think it's reasonable to ask an individual athlete who is capable and offered a spot on a Metro Travel or Paramount team to pass up that opportunity for the greater good of regional volleyball. In the regions you noted, there are many more clubs to choose from that offer similar results. In terms of an optimal roster size, my opinion is that you at least need to able to play 6 v 6 in practice so that means at least 12.

Also, as teams get older the unfortunately reality is that more players get injured meaning have a deep bench provides some level of resiliency. Metro 17 Travel has 2 players out with torn ACLs and another 2 not playing much at GJNC because of lingering injuries. Another thing that seems to happen more often on older teams is that players quit in the middle of the season. The Paramount 17s that started the season with 15 players only has 10 on the roster at GJNC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro, VA Elite, Paramount, and Blue Ridge are the top teams in CHRVA. VA Juniors, MD Juniors, Premier, and MVSA are the next tier, and then it gets kind of hard to say after that.

Depends heavily on the age group and the year. This year, At 12s? Its MVSA, Blue Ridge, MD Jrs, Paramount and MOCO. At 13s? Those plus Metro, VA Juniors. At 14s? Metro, MVSA, Blue Ridge, Columbia, Paramount, MOCO, VA Jrs, LEVBC, MD Jrs.

At 15 the diversity of clubs disappears. This years 15U had 5 teams ranked top 100, and no others between 100-300. At 16 it was 2 teams -- Metro and Blue Ridge, and then a huge drop off. At 17s there were 4 teams in the top 115 (Metro, Blue Ridge, Paramount, VA Elite), and then a big drop from there. And at 18s it was 1 team -- Metro.

Also, congrats to Paramount 17s for making the American gold bracket tomorrow.

That post was only talking about current 17s. Very much agree that it varies widely by age group. Metro and Paramount are pretty consistently in the conversation for top CHRVA teams from 13 and up but the other clubs with competitive teams vary between age groups. For younger teams, Metro is generally not in the conversation and Paramount, MDJRs, and MVSA often have strong younger teams.

[Anonymous]

2024 gjnc 17u final ranking (nationl division):
Va elite: 13 out of 48
Metro: 33 out of 48.

Congratulations team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, as teams get older the unfortunately reality is that more players get injured meaning have a deep bench provides some level of resiliency. Metro 17 Travel has 2 players out with torn ACLs and another 2 not playing much at GJNC because of lingering injuries. Another thing that seems to happen more often on older teams is that players quit in the middle of the season. The Paramount 17s that started the season with 15 players only has 10 on the roster at GJNC.

Usually the solution to this is pulling up players from a 2s team, not keeping 15 on the top team. CHRVA is somewhat unique in that VA Elite, Paramount and Metro only run 1 team at the national level. While Metro does have a number of regional teams at each age group, when was the last time Metro travel pulled someone up mid-season to cover for injuries?

And as for quitting teams, 33% of the team leaving does seem a bit extreme, no? Doesn't seem like a reason to carry 4-5 extra players, unless you know in advance that the coaching style/competitive pressure is guaranteed have that many quit each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2024 gjnc 17u final ranking (nationl division):
Va elite: 13 out of 48
Metro: 33 out of 48.

Congratulations team.

Congrats - good finish for VA Elite. It really shows how important a little luck (i.e., seeding) and winning the right matches are to have a high finish. VA Elite went 4-5 for the tournament and Metro went 7-3, but VA Elite won the matches they needed to to get to the top half. Also, in terms of the W-L record, presumably Metro played easier teams after pool play since they were in the bottom half meaning their W-L record was against weaker teams.

Both teams were 3-2 in their initial pool but VA Elite ended up 3rd while Metro ended up 4th which dropped them to the bottom half of tournament and eliminated any chance of getting to the gold, silver, or bronze bracket. If you look at the results of the teams from each of their pools, it would appear that Metro was in a tougher pool. The teams from VA Elite's pool that advanced to the top half finished:

5th TX Performance

13th A4 Volley

13th VA Elite

The teams from Metro's pool that advanced to the top half finished:

1st Adrenaline

3rd Mintonette

9th FRVBC

And not to take anything away from their accomplishment, but VA Elite's instagram post on this result was funny. It seems to be missing several important details that would make it actually true. "CONGRATULATIONS to our 17s for placing 13th in the country and being the HIGHEST FINISHING CHRVA TEAM at USAV Nationals." They finished 13th in the 17 National division meaning the entire Open division of 36 teams were in a higher division so I don't think that saying they were 13th in the country without any further description is correct. Also, the Paramount 16s team finished 5th in the 16 National division and the Paramount 17s finished 5th in the 17 American division and 5th sure seems higher than 13th to me. It would be accurate to say VAE 17s was the highest finishing CHRVA 17s team in the 17 National division though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, as teams get older the unfortunately reality is that more players get injured meaning have a deep bench provides some level of resiliency. Metro 17 Travel has 2 players out with torn ACLs and another 2 not playing much at GJNC because of lingering injuries. Another thing that seems to happen more often on older teams is that players quit in the middle of the season. The Paramount 17s that started the season with 15 players only has 10 on the roster at GJNC.

Usually the solution to this is pulling up players from a 2s team, not keeping 15 on the top team. CHRVA is somewhat unique in that VA Elite, Paramount and Metro only run 1 team at the national level. While Metro does have a number of regional teams at each age group, when was the last time Metro travel pulled someone up mid-season to cover for injuries?

And as for quitting teams, 33% of the team leaving does seem a bit extreme, no? Doesn't seem like a reason to carry 4-5 extra players, unless you know in advance that the coaching style/competitive pressure is guaranteed have that many quit each year.

I'd hope that 33% of the team quitting is an outlier and agree it's not a legit reason to carry 15 players, but I do think that planning for injuries is valid. I think the MVSA 17s only had 7 or fewer players at their last few tournaments, including AAU Nationals. Carrying only 10 players can be risky, even with a 2nd team to pull from.