Reply to Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)

Forum Index » Volleyball

Reply to "Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I checked another one of your claims.

[quote=Anonymous]
[b]2025 14-1: 96 (added 9, kept 6)
2024 13-1: 211[/b]

In summary:
Four teams added more players from other clubs than they kept from last year: 13-1, 14-1, 15-1, 14-2, 16-2
[u]Every one of these teams improved in rank, with an average improvement of 115 ranking spots.[/u]

[b]In reality what Paramount is doing is assembling 1 year all star teams that combine a few players from the previous year Paramount teams with the best players from the other clubs. There is no argument that those teams succeed, and you can congratulate their coaches on how they get those all stars to perform.[/b]

[You wrote somewhere later:]

Now consider this scenario: A team finishes just outside the top 12 the region last year and doesn't win a bid. This year it wins a bid. [b]In between the seasons, the team cuts 60-70% of its returning players, doesn't promote any players from its lower team, and then replaces all of its starters with new players from other clubs.[/b] Would you claim the club is good at developing its players?
[/quote]
You claim that Paramount "cut" 9 players from 13-1 and added 9 "best players" from other clubs, and that this was the reason the team’s national ranking improved from 211 to 96.
...
Did Paramount really cut 3 weak players who then ended up on top teams like MDJRS, Metro, and Blue Ridge? I don’t know—but I doubt it.
..
As I wrote before, players leave for a variety of reasons. You can’t just claim, without evidence, that Paramount cut all those players and then replaced them with better ones from other teams.[/quote]
Not the PP with all the stats, but I am familiar with that team and age group you are discussing.  You took a lot of what was said by the PP out of context. They didn't say "Paramount cut 9 players", they gave you a hypothetical: A team chooses to cut 60-70% of its returning players, replaces its starters with players from new players from other clubs, and then significantly increases its performance the next year.  They ask you, "Would you claim the club is good at developing its players?"

The general answer to this is no, you wouldn't. It doesn't matter why they left. "Cut",  "too far to drive", "hated it", "not for me", are all valid reasons. The only way to say a club is good at developing its players while losing most of its team is to try to prove the players left to go to better teams or left the region completely.  Your argument even focuses on this approach because that's really the only solid argument against what the stats appear to show.

Consider the fact that losing 9 players off a top 5 team in the region regardless of it they were "cut" or just quit the club is not the norm. Look at the bid teams for 14s this year: Metro Travel, MDJrs Elite Black, Paramount Cozad, VA Juniors, BAVA Waves, LEVBC, MVSA, Paramount Anderson. Leave out LEVBC because they didn't have a 13s team last year. Of the remaining teams, I think the only teams that added more players than they lost were the 2 Paramount teams and VA Juniors.  Metro Travel, MDJRS, VA Juniors, MVSA and BAVA combined added about 25 players to their teams in 2025, an average of 5 per team. Paramount added 18 players to their two teams, an average of 9. When compared to other bid teams, both Paramount 13s teams are significant outliers in terms of player retention as they transitioned to U14. Why does Paramount average 2x the rate of player departures of other top clubs in this age group?

Per your own data, 3 of those players moved up to better teams in 2025 -- the other 5 moved down.  For those 5 it is safe to assume a) they were cut, or b) they chose not to return to the club for any of the same reasons that impact all other clubs, including they just wanted to leave.

Regardless of the reason every other club has the same potential issues. For some reason Paramount tends to turn over many more players than other clubs of similar competitive level.  It’s not just at the 14s age, it’s at virtually every age.  Why?[/quote]
While it’s anecdotal, the reasons I have heard for many players leaving Paramount is the club culture. Winning is the only objective. Intensity and accountability are expected at competitive clubs, but if the stories are true it goes far beyond that, with players being belittled and demeaned. The behavior I have seen on the sidelines at tournaments with certain Paramount coaches is bad enough - I can’t imagine what happens in the comfort of their facility. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics