Reply to Volleyball Action

Forum Index » Volleyball

Reply to "Volleyball Action"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]CHRVA Open Bids, 2024-25 Season:

13 Open: Blue Ridge

14 Open: Metro 14 Travel

15 Open: Paramount VBC 15 Maureen

16 Open: Paramount VBC 16 Nick

17 Open: Metro 17 Travel

18 Open: Metro 18 Travel[/quote]
Paramount VBC 15 Maureen is not on the 15 Open list.
https://usavolleyball.org/compete/girls-indoor/2025-girls-and-18s-qualifier-results/[/quote]

Paramount VBC 15 Maureen got the Open Bid at the Far Western Qualifier. Two bids were available at the tournament. They are the only U15 CHRVA team with an Open Bid this season [/quote]
I don’t understand why Paramount supporters (and their social media accounts) constantly have to point out that they are the only CHRVA club to do some narrowly defined thing. In this case there is literally a list a few posts ago that shows there is only a single CHRVA team qualified in open at every age group from 13-18s.

As far as I know, this is the first time as a region that CHRVA has a team qualified open in every age group with an open division. I also think this may be the first time that 3 different CHRVA clubs qualified teams in open in the same season. Hopefully that means the level of play in the DMV is starting to catch up to other areas of the country with many more strong teams. [/quote]

I thought the same thing. Their long post about how they’re the only CHRVA team blah blah blah… makes me cringe. Paramount is a great club, but they work way too hard to promote/market themselves by presenting limited information. As far as records show, only the two teams coached by directors are doing well, other teams just okay. Maybe they’re hoping such marketing will draw more talents for other age groups. [/quote]

Doesn't Paramount have the most teams qualified for GJNC this season in CHRVA? That seems more than okay? Metro has the most teams qualified in Open this year (3).[/quote]
I don't understand the compulsion to have to make a comparison to other CHRVA clubs. Looking at the USAV spreadsheets, Paramount has 2 open bids, 3 national bids, 1 USA bid, and 2 American bids for a total of 8 bids. Metro has 3 open bids and 4 national bids for a total of 7.

Is 8 total bids with 3 being in lower divisions a better accomplishment than having 7 total bids, but in higher divisions? I don't know and to me making those sorts of oddly specific comparisons seems like a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to one up Metro instead of just celebrating your club's accomplishments.[/quote]

Look at all the club's in Texas and California. There are two things that have the most status in terms of differentiating clubs from better to worst: Open Bids and total teams qualified. The fact that Metro has U12-U18 qualified, and three open bids is impressive. The fact that Paramount has U12-U18 qualified, with two open bids as well as their 15-2 team qualified, is super impressive. As far as I'm aware, I don't know of any of "2nd/"B'" from other clubs that ever qualify in the CHRVA Region.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is trying to minimize  Paramount’s impressive accomplishments. Their success is worthy of celebrating. I think the point being made is that the constant framing of those accomplishments as a comparison to other CHRVA clubs is a bit odd and unnecessary.

Also, as others have noted, it is not unprecedented for CHRVA clubs’ 2nd teams to qualify for GJNC. Another one that comes to mind is Metro 18 North has gotten a bid a few times, although it’s been a few years since that happened (they did go to 18 Nationals in the no-bid required, pay-to-play Patriot division the last couple years)[/quote]

I’ve looked through Regionals results from the last 10 years and don’t recall a CHRVA club ever qualifying a 2nd/“B” team in back-to-back seasons. [/quote]
Ok. Seems plausible. So other CHRVA clubs have had teams other than their “1s” team get bids, but not in back-to-back seasons?  Isn’t that the sort of very specific and narrow comparison to other CHRVA clubs that are being called out as sort of awkward? I just don’t get why there is a need for everything to be expressed in terms of CHRVA.

There’s only been 4 total “2nd” teams get bids to Nationals in the last 10 years. Paramount has done it in back to back years, so I would say that’s significant considering 2nd teams hardly ever get bids. Metro 18 north is always solid, but they’ve still only qualified once in the last 10 years. MVSA’s 2nd teams are usually alright too, but they’ve only qualified once in the last 10 years. I think the trend I’m trying to point out is Paramount’s 2nd teams are pretty much all very competitive in the region (nearly all of them finished in the top 7 at regionals). I point this out because it’s unique in the CHRVA Region for club’s to have competitive 2nd teams. All the clubs are only focused on their top teams in each age group.

[/quote][/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