Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What people don’t realize is if you are super tall and athletic (that Metro 16 team has 6 or 7 players who are 6’2” or taller, and a couple who are 6’4”+), the club doesn’t even have to do anything for the recruiting. Those players could play on the worst club team in the area and they would still end up at those same schools. Those players are self-recruitable. For example, the player who committed to Baylor is 6’3” and touches 10’8”. There are probably only five athletes in the entire country with those metrics. This player could have played anywhere in the CHRVA Region and she still would have ended up at Baylor. This player also didn’t join Metro until her U15 season. Moreover, its important for parents to do their due diligence by checking who actually developed those kids when they commit, meaning did these kids who are committing play for a club since they were U13, or did they come over when they were in high school? The club that developed that player should get the credit for that player’s commitment/development. For example, the two best players on Metro’s 18s team this past season, a Georgia Tech commit and a PSU commit, were developed at other clubs and went over to Metro late. The PSU commit played for MVSA at U13-U14, and VAJRS for U15-U16. The GT commit played at Paramount from U12-U15. Who should get the credit for those players’ development?
Lots of truth here. Players with certain physical attributes and athletic ability that can't be taught are going to be recruited regardless of who they play for. The 2025 PSU commit you mentioned is pushing 6'4" and is also incredibly athletic (in addition to getting lots of attention because of her parents' athletic achievements) and would likely have been noticed regardless of what club she played for (although you missed her 12s year that she played for Metro Central).
As far as whether another club should get the "credit" for players who started at other clubs and end up at Metro either just before (or even after) they commit is kind of a flawed premise. Most volleyball players who start at age 10 or 11 will play for several clubs over the course of their club careers. If they are a CHRVA player and are exceptional or recognized as having a lot of potential, they often end up on a Metro Travel or Paramount team. Over the course of the 6+ years that many of these recruited athletes play prior to being recruited and committing, they will likely have many coaches (club, high school, private lessons, etc.). It's the combination of all this coaching and experiences that help a player develop so I don't think it's realistic for a single person or entity (other than the player themselves) to take credit for the success. There are tons of great coaches and clubs that are training good volleyball players in our region and they don't always get the recognition they deserve, either because they coach younger kids or because their club isn't as competitive and their best players go elsewhere at some point.
Of course all of these clubs are small businesses that want to use the successes of their athletes as a promotional tool, so it's not surprising to see clubs proudly announcing when one of their players commits. But I agree, it's not really accurate for Metro or Paramount to claim sole responsibility for a player's commitment. That said, for a variety of reasons the best players in CHRVA tend to end up at a handful of CHRVA clubs by about age 16 and when those players commit to play collegiately, those clubs will take credit.