Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's important to note that the owners of Paramount - specifically Nick- has three active investigations against him with CHRVA, Paramount has been uninvited to atleast one tournament due to multiple complaints about Nick's behavior where officials sat courtside to make sure he kept himself in check and then paramount wasn't invited back. It's impacting Paramounts recruiting.

It's a horrible environment for the girls and some parents are willing to put up with it b/c they want to "win" and/or they drink the "living up to potential" kool-aid. The mental strain on girls has last impacts.

Talk to a parent that has LEFT and understand why as well as a family that has stayed and understand their reasoning. AND then make a decison based on what is best for your DD.

What's your source for any of this? I do not have a horse in this race at all, but your post reads like someone with an ax to grind.

How could you possibly know about CHRVA investigations? An investigation does not mean something improper happened, only that someone, probably you, has complained!
What tournament do you think they have been uninvited from? How would you know?
What is your source for recruiting? From what I can see of the recruitable age range, the girls are landing at excellent schools. I spent 30 seconds flipping through commitments on their Instagram and saw Penn State, Vanderbilt, UCONN, Central Michigan, Amherst, Hampton, Notre Dame, and maybe others, too.

You might have legitimate gripes, but mixing things that are easily fact-checked with real ones makes everything you say questionable.

My dd played for Paramount and decided to leave the club after the incidents above. We are with another club that has ex-paramount families as well and stories are all similar.

If stating fact reads like "an ax to grind" then that's on you. I'm shaing our experience- believe me or not- that's up to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's important to note that the owners of Paramount - specifically Nick- has three active investigations against him with CHRVA, Paramount has been uninvited to atleast one tournament due to multiple complaints about Nick's behavior where officials sat courtside to make sure he kept himself in check and then paramount wasn't invited back. It's impacting Paramounts recruiting.

It's a horrible environment for the girls and some parents are willing to put up with it b/c they want to "win" and/or they drink the "living up to potential" kool-aid. The mental strain on girls has last impacts.

Talk to a parent that has LEFT and understand why as well as a family that has stayed and understand their reasoning. AND then make a decison based on what is best for your DD.

What's your source for any of this? I do not have a horse in this race at all, but your post reads like someone with an ax to grind.

How could you possibly know about CHRVA investigations? An investigation does not mean something improper happened, only that someone, probably you, has complained!
What tournament do you think they have been uninvited from? How would you know?
What is your source for recruiting? From what I can see of the recruitable age range, the girls are landing at excellent schools. I spent 30 seconds flipping through commitments on their Instagram and saw Penn State, Vanderbilt, UCONN, Central Michigan, Amherst, Hampton, Notre Dame, and maybe others, too.

You might have legitimate gripes, but mixing things that are easily fact-checked with real ones makes everything you say questionable.

Anonymous wrote:it's important to note that the owners of Paramount - specifically Nick- has three active investigations against him with CHRVA, Paramount has been uninvited to atleast one tournament due to multiple complaints about Nick's behavior where officials sat courtside to make sure he kept himself in check and then paramount wasn't invited back. It's impacting Paramounts recruiting.

It's a horrible environment for the girls and some parents are willing to put up with it b/c they want to "win" and/or they drink the "living up to potential" kool-aid. The mental strain on girls has last impacts.

Talk to a parent that has LEFT and understand why as well as a family that has stayed and understand their reasoning. AND then make a decison based on what is best for your DD.

Anonymous wrote:Finally, both programs appear intent on stockpiling top players, even if it means keeping them on the bench, simply to prevent other teams from having access to that talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn’t seem to answer the question of limited experience or “new” coaches on their site. Coach quality is a consistent complaint. Now adding a bunch of new teams on an area already stressed by limited coach availability. You get fresh out of college coaches or those with limited actual coaching experience there. Or both. Metro doesn’t seem to suffer for that issue to the same extend.

“Metro doesn’t seem to suffer from that issue to the same extent"—but is that really a good thing? From what I’ve observed, Metro and Paramount remind me a lot of our experience with local soccer clubs like Bethesda and Potomac, particularly in how they hire coaches. They tend to prioritize candidates with strong playing resumes, but do great players automatically make great coaches? I don’t believe so.

From my perspective, both Paramount & Metro Travel coaches can be tough in a way that feels more negative than constructive. At times, it borders on calling players out—or even bullying[u]—under the rationale of ‘toughening them up’ and getting them ‘ready for college.’ You can see it clearly in their sideline demeanor when the team is struggling. Watch how they ‘coach’ and how they try to ‘motivate’—there’s often very little positive reinforcement. They don’t seem to know how to be demanding in a way that is still supportive.

It also appears that their ideal player—setting aside skill and physical tools—is someone who is vocal and able to absorb constant criticism. Quieter, more cerebral players often seem undervalued and are sometimes perceived as weak.

Finally, both programs appear intent on stockpiling top players, even if it means keeping them on the bench, simply to prevent other teams from having access to that talent.

Anonymous wrote:That doesn’t seem to answer the question of limited experience or “new” coaches on their site. Coach quality is a consistent complaint. Now adding a bunch of new teams on an area already stressed by limited coach availability. You get fresh out of college coaches or those with limited actual coaching experience there. Or both. Metro doesn’t seem to suffer for that issue to the same extend.

Anonymous wrote:Has either metro or paramount announced their u13 and u14 rosters?

What sort of movement happened? Any insights into whether the 2nd and 3rd teams impacted recruitment elsewhere.

Someone at our HS states that Libero club didn’t even have enough players to field a national team after posting a pretty solid season last year. Collateral damage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there is a difference between whether they play open and whether they SHOULD play open. Just because MOJO decided to sign up for the open level, it doesn't mean they are competitive at that level. This is what What I noticed with our team: every time we play close to our (true) level, the games are more competitive and the players have a lot of fun, even when they lose the game. When we pretend to play a higher level volleyball, we are being crushed, the games suck, and the girls are demoralized. There are good reasons to play close to your level, rather than get the players and the parents frustrated.

So, back to the question, who would you suggest in northern Va as high performing?

1. Paramount
2. VA Juniors
3. VA Elites
4. American

I don't know that I would put VA Elite as #3. They occasionally have a strong team in a particular age group, but American, Loudoun Elite, Libero, and others had higher national rankings in most age groups last season. And if you include Blue Ridge as "northern VA", they would be #2 in my list.

Overall, Blue Ridge usually outperforms Paramount. Over the past two years the Blue Ridge teams outranked Paramount 1s in nearly all age groups at least once and sometimes twice. They are also the only competitive beach program in the area and as a result their players generally develop as very good all around volleyball players, especially at the younger ages. Some players spend their entire club career with them and their training success really shows. Despite being in a much smaller population area they compete with all of the top teams in the region.

Because Blue Ridge doesn't generally pursue USAV bids and Paramount uses bids as their main marketing draw, Blue Ridge often gets overshadowed. When they do go for bids they usually win one. And in head to head matches Blue Ridge does very well against Paramount especially at the youngest and oldest ages. Plus they are less than half the cost of Paramount.

Blue Ridge runs a great program. Their combination of indoor and beach is wonderful. Every club should consider doing indoor and beach together. Wish there is another club close to DC doing that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn’t seem to answer the question of limited experience or “new” coaches on their site. Coach quality is a consistent complaint. Now adding a bunch of new teams on an area already stressed by limited coach availability. You get fresh out of college coaches or those with limited actual coaching experience there. Or both. Metro doesn’t seem to suffer for that issue to the same extend.

Paramount qualifying 9 teams for the 2025 GJNC (which was 2 more teams than Metro qualified) would seem to prove that Paramount doesn't have a problem with providing qualified coaches. If Metro's coaching staff is so superior, why did they only qualify 7 teams?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn’t seem to answer the question of limited experience or “new” coaches on their site. Coach quality is a consistent complaint. Now adding a bunch of new teams on an area already stressed by limited coach availability. You get fresh out of college coaches or those with limited actual coaching experience there. Or both. Metro doesn’t seem to suffer for that issue to the same extend.

Paramount qualifying 9 teams for the 2025 GJNC (which was 2 more teams than Metro qualified) would seem to prove that Paramount doesn't have a problem with providing qualified coaches. If Metro's coaching staff is so superior, why did they only qualify 7 teams?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, get the popcorn. This is going to be good.

Meh. Just click back to the earlier pages of this thread. The Paramount has superior training narrative was already thoroughly debunked using a lot of verifiable data.

This is not about claims that may or may not have have been debunked: this is about passion, relentlessness, and resilience.