Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but we have seen the same cliquey mean girl crap with certain Mojo teams and coaches. I have personally seen unsportsmanlike behavior from some of their players and coaches. At one tournament, the Mojo girls were not taking their turn at scoring seriously - mocking the opposing teams (pointing and laughing at players making mistakes or errors, eating, checking phones) and worst of all missing score keeping points in the process. When the coach of one playing team, as well as parents, pointed out the several-point errors in their scoring, instead of apologizing and fixing it and taking it more seriously the Mojo girls continued to more dramatically eat/check phones, point, sneer and smirk at the parents and other coaches and continued their mocking and laughing about it. Even worse, at one point the Mojo coach joined in laughing with them and apparently thought it was funny that the playing teams coaches were upset by this.

Seems to me that the easy fix is teams that exhibit unsportsmanlike conduct (be it on the court while playing, or in a support role to burden-share running the tourney) ought to be shown the door and forfeit their entry and fees. Pretty sure somewhere buried in the fine print before committing money, participating, etc., is a general overview of expected behavior. Don't understand why the folks running the tournaments would want that kind of nonsense to ruin the competition.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of the MOJO behavior described, but have certainly seen plenty of disrespectful behavior and obnoxious behavior all around. Certain clubs definitely have reputations for how their coaches, players, and parents treat officials and work teams (as well as for being bad work teams). I think USAV and CHRVA recognize the problem, but I don't have the sense they have been very effective in reducing the behavior. CHRVA put a "purple card" program in place a few years ago that allows for fine to clubs for poor behavior on the part of their spectators or other affiliated with a club. https://www.chrva.org/page/show/6890541-purplecarddoc. I have seen a tournament director give a purple card to a team on one occasion and it was for parents yelling at a player line judge. The worst part was that it was in one of the flight brackets at the 2-day Chesapeake Showdown tournament so these parents were berating a 13 year old over a call that was probably a battle for 17th or 19th place out of 24 teams. It would be interesting to know whether CHRVA has fined any clubs since they put the purple card in place.

Anonymous wrote:Looking for feedback on Vienna Elite. They aren’t mentioned much in these threads. Culture? Competitiveness?

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone with first hand experience with either Paramount and/or Metro Travel speak to the culture, coaching, and college recruiting? We have moved from out of state and had been told to look at those two clubs specifically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking for feedback on Vienna Elite. They aren’t mentioned much in these threads. Culture? Competitiveness?

No direct experience with Vienna Elite so I can't speak to the culture, but it seems like they have fallen off in recent years in terms of competitiveness. Looking at their AES rankings from last season, the highest any of the their teams were ranked within CHRVA was their 14s, which were ranked 31 in the region at the end of the season. Seems like only 2 Vienna Elite teams made it into 2024 bid regionals (12s and 14s) and both of them finished last in their divisions.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that balanced overview of Paramount. There are clearly things that go well and things that don't go that well. It looks like you do well if you get on the court, but you are out of luck if you are there just to warm the bench. Unfortunately, you can't figure out your role until you accept the offer and see the other players on the roster. From talking to Paramount parents at various tournaments, my understanding was that they put on the court the weaker players during the pool play, then get the best players on the court during the brackets. That's how they give everyone a shot at being on the court. But it might be just the team we played against - other coaches might have a different strategy.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that balanced overview of Paramount. There are clearly things that go well and things that don't go that well. It looks like you do well if you get on the court, but you are out of luck if you are there just to warm the bench. Unfortunately, you can't figure out your role until you accept the offer and see the other players on the roster. From talking to Paramount parents at various tournaments, my understanding was that they put on the court the weaker players during the pool play, then get the best players on the court during the brackets. That's how they give everyone a shot at being on the court. But it might be just the team we played against - other coaches might have a different strategy.

Anonymous wrote:If you're playing for either Metro or Paramount (the two best clubs in the CHRVA Region that are in a separate category from any of the other clubs), there are always going to be players who don't get on the court in meaningful matches. These two clubs play at the highest level against the best competition in the country, so if your child isn't as strong as the other players on the team, you're going to be on the bench (besides in the lopsided matches). That is true for either of these clubs (both clubs tend to take large roster sizes of 14-15).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that balanced overview of Paramount. There are clearly things that go well and things that don't go that well. It looks like you do well if you get on the court, but you are out of luck if you are there just to warm the bench. Unfortunately, you can't figure out your role until you accept the offer and see the other players on the roster. From talking to Paramount parents at various tournaments, my understanding was that they put on the court the weaker players during the pool play, then get the best players on the court during the brackets. That's how they give everyone a shot at being on the court. But it might be just the team we played against - other coaches might have a different strategy.

The PP poster made the right distinction is using the word favorite instead of best or weakest. All coaches in all clubs have their favorite players but in most clubs the roster sizes and club policies put a boundary around how much favoritism they can show. Paramount and Metro Travel teams don't have those boundaries. They usually take 14-15 players and have no playing time commitments other than "earn it".

Every player can have a bad day or a good day. Our experience was that favorites were allowed to have a lot more bad days than the non-favorites and they were allowed to fail for longer. Conversely, a non-favorite having a good day very rarely resulted in them getting the starting spot in a later set or an important match. At tournaments, the favorites start sets and stay in until the coach feels like the lead is comfortable enough to play the other players. The tougher the match or the more important the match is to getting out of pool play, the more likely it is that the favorites stay in. If the favorites are struggling they tend to stay in longer because a comfortable lead never develops. Last year the same players that started the first set of the season started the last set of the season. We had more than a few tournaments where multiple players never saw the court.

This became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The favorites get more reps together, which allowed them to have better chemistry and better team performance. Our DD was one of those favorites so its was good for us. She got a ton of reps and had a great experience. The non-favorites only got reps in blowout matches or an occasional start in easy pool play matches. As a result, they were never ready for the competitive matches where the pressure is high, with most of that pressure coming from your own coaching staff and team parents. This approach plays out in practices as well.

Anonymous wrote:If you're playing for either Metro or Paramount (the two best clubs in the CHRVA Region that are in a separate category from any of the other clubs), there are always going to be players who don't get on the court in meaningful matches. These two clubs play at the highest level against the best competition in the country, so if your child isn't as strong as the other players on the team, you're going to be on the bench (besides in the lopsided matches). That is true for either of these clubs (both clubs tend to take large roster sizes of 14-15).

We played a lot of very good teams who didn't take this approach. Roster sizes ranged from 10-15 and everyone played. We lost to some of those teams, and beat others. Outside of our schedule, we watched gold bracket matches at nationals where the coaches were clearly comfortable playing everyone.

FPYCparent wrote:I'm coming off of one season at Paramount, where my kid was on one of the higher-performing teams ... playing for one of the more "excitable" coaches at the club. This was my kid's second year of club volleyball, but we had heard a wide range of things about this coach and the club. We were somewhat prepared.

I don't know if this happens with every team at high-level club, but the coach definitely had some favorite players on that team. As a result, there were some entire weekends where a handful of players did not play at all. Flying from DC to Florida, Missouri, Atlanta, etc. and staying in hotels makes for quite the family expense only to have your kid not even get on the court during a single match. While my kid wasn't a starter, she did get on the court in nearly every set the team played last season.

I will add that having a player at Paramount gave us access to better/"closer-in" hotels during some tournament weekends than what we had experienced the year prior at another club. Having only to walk two blocks to the tournament venue vs. driving 20+ minutes and having to park at a convention center can make a world of difference. Forget something in the hotel room? No problem! I'll grab it and be back in 10 minutes! You won't do that if it requires driving and there isn't anything convenient nearby ... and open on a three-day holiday weekend. (SpotHero is still a go-to resource for me when I need it!)

As I hinted, this particular coach can have an outburst at any time, but **I** never heard any cursing or constant berating of a particular player during practices or matches. If anything, the bench players or a ref might get an earful during match ... and yes, there are some refs that won't play that game. With the coach having some favorite players, there would never be anything negative directed at any of them. When a set/match got way out-of-hand (thankfully, didn't happen repeatedly), seeing the coach effectively give up and just sit on the bench isn't the kind of energy or motivation the players need at that moment. If the team isn't performing as expected during a practice, I'm sure there will be a few extra sprints thrown in.

Heading into this upcoming season, I've heard from other Paramount parents (involved with other teams). They've shared some of the things that their player's coaches have said to players during matches last season and prior. There were definitely some things that crossed the line for me. So, I'm not going to pretend that kind of thing doesn't happen at this club. I'm just thankful that I didn't observe it for myself ... and I hope that my player didn't have to directly endure anything like that.

The only observation that I can offer on the Metro/Paramount dynamic is that it seems many of the parents know each other, perhaps from years on opposing (or the same) sidelines. Things might get loud when the clubs face each other on the court, but as soon as the match is over, I'll see parents chatting it up like old friends. I've also heard a Metro coach or two get mouthy with a ref. Certainly doesn't happen at every Metro match I've seen, so it may only be one or two coaches that occasionally act out a little.


Beyond that, I can only offer a useless spreadsheet to help folks navigate tryouts over the next few weeks. Hopefully, it will help someone get a better "lay of the land" that is CHRVA.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1230731.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that balanced overview of Paramount. There are clearly things that go well and things that don't go that well. It looks like you do well if you get on the court, but you are out of luck if you are there just to warm the bench. Unfortunately, you can't figure out your role until you accept the offer and see the other players on the roster. From talking to Paramount parents at various tournaments, my understanding was that they put on the court the weaker players during the pool play, then get the best players on the court during the brackets. That's how they give everyone a shot at being on the court. But it might be just the team we played against - other coaches might have a different strategy.

The PP poster made the right distinction is using the word favorite instead of best or weakest. All coaches in all clubs have their favorite players but in most clubs the roster sizes and club policies put a boundary around how much favoritism they can show. Paramount and Metro Travel teams don't have those boundaries. They usually take 14-15 players and have no playing time commitments other than "earn it".

Every player can have a bad day or a good day. Our experience was that favorites were allowed to have a lot more bad days than the non-favorites and they were allowed to fail for longer. Conversely, a non-favorite having a good day very rarely resulted in them getting the starting spot in a later set or an important match. At tournaments, the favorites start sets and stay in until the coach feels like the lead is comfortable enough to play the other players. The tougher the match or the more important the match is to getting out of pool play, the more likely it is that the favorites stay in. If the favorites are struggling they tend to stay in longer because a comfortable lead never develops. Last year the same players that started the first set of the season started the last set of the season. We had more than a few tournaments where multiple players never saw the court.

This became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The favorites get more reps together, which allowed them to have better chemistry and better team performance. Our DD was one of those favorites so its was good for us. She got a ton of reps and had a great experience. The non-favorites only got reps in blowout matches or an occasional start in easy pool play matches. As a result, they were never ready for the competitive matches where the pressure is high, with most of that pressure coming from your own coaching staff and team parents. This approach plays out in practices as well.

Anonymous wrote:If you're playing for either Metro or Paramount (the two best clubs in the CHRVA Region that are in a separate category from any of the other clubs), there are always going to be players who don't get on the court in meaningful matches. These two clubs play at the highest level against the best competition in the country, so if your child isn't as strong as the other players on the team, you're going to be on the bench (besides in the lopsided matches). That is true for either of these clubs (both clubs tend to take large roster sizes of 14-15).

We played a lot of very good teams who didn't take this approach. Roster sizes ranged from 10-15 and everyone played. We lost to some of those teams, and beat others. Outside of our schedule, we watched gold bracket matches at nationals where the coaches were clearly comfortable playing everyone.

You make it sound as if there is no correlation between "favorite" and "better" player. Our coach was subbing our DD as soon as it was her turn to serve because the player going in was more consistent. We didn't look at it as favoritism because we were keenly aware that she couldn't serve well enough. We practiced the serve at home for several weeks until she became one of the most consistent on the team. As soon as the coach noticed that she is dependable, he gave her more opportunities to serve during games. She started with no serves for a couple of months and ended serving more than the other player. Was that favoritism or she earned her spot on the court?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for that balanced overview of Paramount. There are clearly things that go well and things that don't go that well. It looks like you do well if you get on the court, but you are out of luck if you are there just to warm the bench. Unfortunately, you can't figure out your role until you accept the offer and see the other players on the roster. From talking to Paramount parents at various tournaments, my understanding was that they put on the court the weaker players during the pool play, then get the best players on the court during the brackets. That's how they give everyone a shot at being on the court. But it might be just the team we played against - other coaches might have a different strategy.

The PP poster made the right distinction is using the word favorite instead of best or weakest. All coaches in all clubs have their favorite players but in most clubs the roster sizes and club policies put a boundary around how much favoritism they can show. Paramount and Metro Travel teams don't have those boundaries. They usually take 14-15 players and have no playing time commitments other than "earn it".

Every player can have a bad day or a good day. Our experience was that favorites were allowed to have a lot more bad days than the non-favorites and they were allowed to fail for longer. Conversely, a non-favorite having a good day very rarely resulted in them getting the starting spot in a later set or an important match. At tournaments, the favorites start sets and stay in until the coach feels like the lead is comfortable enough to play the other players. The tougher the match or the more important the match is to getting out of pool play, the more likely it is that the favorites stay in. If the favorites are struggling they tend to stay in longer because a comfortable lead never develops. Last year the same players that started the first set of the season started the last set of the season. We had more than a few tournaments where multiple players never saw the court.

This became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The favorites get more reps together, which allowed them to have better chemistry and better team performance. Our DD was one of those favorites so its was good for us. She got a ton of reps and had a great experience. The non-favorites only got reps in blowout matches or an occasional start in easy pool play matches. As a result, they were never ready for the competitive matches where the pressure is high, with most of that pressure coming from your own coaching staff and team parents. This approach plays out in practices as well.

Anonymous wrote:If you're playing for either Metro or Paramount (the two best clubs in the CHRVA Region that are in a separate category from any of the other clubs), there are always going to be players who don't get on the court in meaningful matches. These two clubs play at the highest level against the best competition in the country, so if your child isn't as strong as the other players on the team, you're going to be on the bench (besides in the lopsided matches). That is true for either of these clubs (both clubs tend to take large roster sizes of 14-15).

We played a lot of very good teams who didn't take this approach. Roster sizes ranged from 10-15 and everyone played. We lost to some of those teams, and beat others. Outside of our schedule, we watched gold bracket matches at nationals where the coaches were clearly comfortable playing everyone.

You make it sound as if there is no correlation between "favorite" and "better" player. Our coach was subbing our DD as soon as it was her turn to serve because the player going in was more consistent. We didn't look at it as favoritism because we were keenly aware that she couldn't serve well enough. We practiced the serve at home for several weeks until she became one of the most consistent on the team. As soon as the coach noticed that she is dependable, he gave her more opportunities to serve during games. She started with no serves for a couple of months and ended serving more than the other player. Was that favoritism or she earned her spot on the court?

I don’t think you meant to, but you proved the point the previous poster made. Your DD started the matches. Your DD was the favorite, not the other player that was subbing for her.

Your DD goes home and works hard, gets better and takes over the serving role for the other player. From your point of view she earned her chance to serve. And that’s great that she did. But in reality you proved the self-fulfilling prophecy the PP discussed.

Since you said your DD ended up serving more than the backup, but “didn’t serve for months” that means the backup must not have served much or at all the entire rest of the season. That’s exactly the point the PP was making about their team.

I’m sure lots of people will argue it’s all about performance. If you want to play, get better. But can you honestly say that if serving backup was equal in consistency to your DD, then the backup would have played?

And if the backup was such a good server at the start of the season, then after your DD beat her out by becoming “one of the most consistent on the team,” why didn’t the backup serve for someone else after that?

Anonymous wrote:

FPYCparent wrote:I'm coming off of one season at Paramount, where my kid was on one of the higher-performing teams ... playing for one of the more "excitable" coaches at the club. This was my kid's second year of club volleyball, but we had heard a wide range of things about this coach and the club. We were somewhat prepared.

I don't know if this happens with every team at high-level club, but the coach definitely had some favorite players on that team. As a result, there were some entire weekends where a handful of players did not play at all. Flying from DC to Florida, Missouri, Atlanta, etc. and staying in hotels makes for quite the family expense only to have your kid not even get on the court during a single match. While my kid wasn't a starter, she did get on the court in nearly every set the team played last season.

I will add that having a player at Paramount gave us access to better/"closer-in" hotels during some tournament weekends than what we had experienced the year prior at another club. Having only to walk two blocks to the tournament venue vs. driving 20+ minutes and having to park at a convention center can make a world of difference. Forget something in the hotel room? No problem! I'll grab it and be back in 10 minutes! You won't do that if it requires driving and there isn't anything convenient nearby ... and open on a three-day holiday weekend. (SpotHero is still a go-to resource for me when I need it!)

As I hinted, this particular coach can have an outburst at any time, but **I** never heard any cursing or constant berating of a particular player during practices or matches. If anything, the bench players or a ref might get an earful during match ... and yes, there are some refs that won't play that game. With the coach having some favorite players, there would never be anything negative directed at any of them. When a set/match got way out-of-hand (thankfully, didn't happen repeatedly), seeing the coach effectively give up and just sit on the bench isn't the kind of energy or motivation the players need at that moment. If the team isn't performing as expected during a practice, I'm sure there will be a few extra sprints thrown in.

Heading into this upcoming season, I've heard from other Paramount parents (involved with other teams). They've shared some of the things that their player's coaches have said to players during matches last season and prior. There were definitely some things that crossed the line for me. So, I'm not going to pretend that kind of thing doesn't happen at this club. I'm just thankful that I didn't observe it for myself ... and I hope that my player didn't have to directly endure anything like that.

The only observation that I can offer on the Metro/Paramount dynamic is that it seems many of the parents know each other, perhaps from years on opposing (or the same) sidelines. Things might get loud when the clubs face each other on the court, but as soon as the match is over, I'll see parents chatting it up like old friends. I've also heard a Metro coach or two get mouthy with a ref. Certainly doesn't happen at every Metro match I've seen, so it may only be one or two coaches that occasionally act out a little.


Beyond that, I can only offer a useless spreadsheet to help folks navigate tryouts over the next few weeks. Hopefully, it will help someone get a better "lay of the land" that is CHRVA.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1230731.page

Based on your description, your daughter was on the team that got an Open Bid, right? So clearly the coach's "favorites" appeared to be the right lineup choices if this team did accomplished something that only the top 36 teams in the country accomplish, no?