Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My daughter is one of the top players in her age group and she will not be playing for Metro or Paramount despite being recruited by both. The blunt and honest reason why: Metro practice is too far, Paramount coaching style is not what we want for our DD, nor does she.

Can you say something more about "Paramount coaching style"? We are new to club volleyball and would appreciate anything you can share about the clubs around here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding training, I haven’t seen anyone criticizing Paramount’s training quality. That said, the narrative that gets repeated on these forums that Paramount is taking less talented players and turning them into volleyball superstars is insulting to their players. They are obviously attracting quality athletes. AES shows 140+ CHRVA teams in the more popular age groups (14, 15, and 16). If these teams average say 11 players per team, that means there are well over 1500 CHRVA players in each of these age groups. It is simple math that Metro can’t take all the most talented players - sure they get some of the best players in the region at their tryouts every year, but it’s not possible for them to hoard every talented player and Paramount also recruits many highly skilled players with incredible potential.

This is an important point for everyone, not just those who are invested in the Metro/Paramount debate.
Metro Travel & Paramount 1s represent ~30 players in the region (2%)
The next 13 best teams represent ~150 players (10%)
The remaining 125 teams represent ~1300 players (88%)

If you are in that 88% the vast majority of the advice in this forum that focus on the 2-3 "top tier" clubs is unhelpful. It’s even unhelpful to most of the top 10% because only 30 players can make the top 2 teams in the region. A lot of the discussion on those 2 clubs uses language like "mid tier" for other clubs and teams even when they are part of the top teams of the region. We've personally heard many parents of players we played with use the "mid-tier" language and then turn down a great team at a very good club to chase a spot on a lower team at one of those "top tier" clubs, believing it will result in better development for their player and a better chance of getting onto the top team. That thinking gets even stronger in HS where parents are sold the idea of college scholarships and easier admissions through volleyball. The reality is if your goal is to play for one of the top two clubs in the critical recruiting years of U16-U18, you generally need to be playing on one of those other top 13 teams by U15. In fact, statistically your chances of making a U17-U18 team at Metro or Paramount are generally better if you don't play for them in the early years.

+1

Very good points here regarding the numbers. I’m guilty of participating in the lively Metro Travel vs Paramount vs whoever debates, when those teams are really should only be a consideration for the top 5% of players. I suppose the reason for the attention these clubs get on these forums is that the parents of these kids tend to be knowledgeable and passionate about volleyball (or worse, living vicariously through or pushing their own unfulfilled ambitions onto their DDs).

It’s important for parents to be realistic about their DD’s abilities and potential. There are clubs and teams for girls at all levels and volleyball can still be a fun and rewarding experience even if your DD isn’t going to play in college.

I tried to make this point numerous times, yet a lot of threads tend to turn into a Metro Travel vs. Paramount lively discussion. Most parents of beginner players read these discussions and are left with the belief that the goal should be playing for these teams. In reality, most players are not physically and or technically ready to play at that level (and probably will never be). Talking about where a particular player played before she moved to Metro or Paramount is absolutely irrelevant for most families.

My daughter is one of the top players in her age group and she will not be playing for Metro or Paramount despite being recruited by both. The blunt and honest reason why: Metro practice is too far, Paramount coaching style is not what we want for our DD, nor does she.

Also, dont just walk into Metro or Paramount's tryouts and hope to get a spot. If they want her, they will reach out. If they don't, it's highly unlikely she will not get a spot or will be a bench warmer- up to you if that's the route you want to go.

IF D1 is the goal AND your dd is actually D1 talent, she'll get looks/recruited. You have to be realistic about your DD's talent and work ethic. Being on Metro or Paramount won't automatically result in a D1 offer, and the inverse is true as well, being on another club doesn't mean DD won't get a D1 offer.

Anonymous wrote:
My daughter is one of the top players in her age group and she will not be playing for Metro or Paramount despite being recruited by both. The blunt and honest reason why: Metro practice is too far, Paramount coaching style is not what we want for our DD, nor does she.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding training, I haven’t seen anyone criticizing Paramount’s training quality. That said, the narrative that gets repeated on these forums that Paramount is taking less talented players and turning them into volleyball superstars is insulting to their players. They are obviously attracting quality athletes. AES shows 140+ CHRVA teams in the more popular age groups (14, 15, and 16). If these teams average say 11 players per team, that means there are well over 1500 CHRVA players in each of these age groups. It is simple math that Metro can’t take all the most talented players - sure they get some of the best players in the region at their tryouts every year, but it’s not possible for them to hoard every talented player and Paramount also recruits many highly skilled players with incredible potential.

This is an important point for everyone, not just those who are invested in the Metro/Paramount debate.
Metro Travel & Paramount 1s represent ~30 players in the region (2%)
The next 13 best teams represent ~150 players (10%)
The remaining 125 teams represent ~1300 players (88%)

If you are in that 88% the vast majority of the advice in this forum that focus on the 2-3 "top tier" clubs is unhelpful. It’s even unhelpful to most of the top 10% because only 30 players can make the top 2 teams in the region. A lot of the discussion on those 2 clubs uses language like "mid tier" for other clubs and teams even when they are part of the top teams of the region. We've personally heard many parents of players we played with use the "mid-tier" language and then turn down a great team at a very good club to chase a spot on a lower team at one of those "top tier" clubs, believing it will result in better development for their player and a better chance of getting onto the top team. That thinking gets even stronger in HS where parents are sold the idea of college scholarships and easier admissions through volleyball. The reality is if your goal is to play for one of the top two clubs in the critical recruiting years of U16-U18, you generally need to be playing on one of those other top 13 teams by U15. In fact, statistically your chances of making a U17-U18 team at Metro or Paramount are generally better if you don't play for them in the early years.

+1

Very good points here regarding the numbers. I’m guilty of participating in the lively Metro Travel vs Paramount vs whoever debates, when those teams are really should only be a consideration for the top 5% of players. I suppose the reason for the attention these clubs get on these forums is that the parents of these kids tend to be knowledgeable and passionate about volleyball (or worse, living vicariously through or pushing their own unfulfilled ambitions onto their DDs).

It’s important for parents to be realistic about their DD’s abilities and potential. There are clubs and teams for girls at all levels and volleyball can still be a fun and rewarding experience even if your DD isn’t going to play in college.

I tried to make this point numerous times, yet a lot of threads tend to turn into a Metro Travel vs. Paramount lively discussion. Most parents of beginner players read these discussions and are left with the belief that the goal should be playing for these teams. In reality, most players are not physically and or technically ready to play at that level (and probably will never be). Talking about where a particular player played before she moved to Metro or Paramount is absolutely irrelevant for most families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:,

they are looking at the big picture (college recruitment) instead of focusing on the instant gratification (bringing home easy medals). They may have found the recipe for success in their niche market (rich families with tall players

THIS! Especially now, with portal/roster limits, every club that has 4+ college commitments for the class of 2026 (and later) has a niche market (80% of greater of players with a few standout exceptions who show up on their instagram a lot).

VAE = rich families with tall players (who can be full pay in college on a volleyball roster) based on their website & instagram to date: 6 commits for 2026

METRO Travel= tallest, most athletic/talented highest number with parent(s) who played in college thus greatest number D1 commits. Close to 100% commitment for 2026 class

Paramount 1s team= not as tall, extremely athletic, talented enough to easily win in CHRVA, do decently outside the region. Very few commits in 2026 and club doesn’t seem to care about college commits generally. 3 commits for 2026

540 undersized , very athletic, talented players who want play in college and are pragmatic about it (impressive number of D2 and D3) 8 or 9 college commits for 2026

Vajrs ? What their niche is. used to be a powerhouse in terms of college players, but very limited success on this metric since 2023/2024. 1 commit for 2026

MVSA = at HS level niche is strongest players from MOCO public and independent school teams who are not on Metro or PM. No college focus. 1 commit for 2026

At the 1-2 commits for a grad year level, that suggests partial (or even very little or ineffective) club support for the college recruitment process.

Paramount doesn't care about college commitments? Their 2027 class already has commitments to Penn State, Vanderbilt, UConn and Delaware? Agree about VAJRS, although they do have two 2027 commitments to UVA. Metro's 2026 class was exceptionally long/athletic/talented.

VA Juniors is a bit of a spent force these days - there was a time they were a clear second in region behind metro. Paramount ate their lunch and they haven’t recovered. Toxic environment as I understand it.

VA JRS parent here, not a toxic environment at all there were rumors of that a couple years ago but that was a particualar team and coach who have since dispersed and a lot of it was fake drama. I'll agree that "Paramount is eating JRS" but also it's a completely different vibe and caoching style. So it's more about what you want for your DD in terms of environment and coaching.

Is the guy who was unofficially running the club now gone from the club?

When Liz stepped back, the club turned into a toxic mess. Hopefully it’s back on track

Don't see it turning around anytime soon, especially considering they don't have anywhere to practice this upcoming season since King Abdullah shut down.

please just state facts instead of perpetuating drama. They have a practice location.

If you think the Fieldhouse will have enough availability for 6 hours of practice per week for each team…

Isn't that where Vienna Elite has been practicing for several years? Will Jrs be bumping them out?

They mostly practiced at the Nzone last year and only used that location for two teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding training, I haven’t seen anyone criticizing Paramount’s training quality. That said, the narrative that gets repeated on these forums that Paramount is taking less talented players and turning them into volleyball superstars is insulting to their players. They are obviously attracting quality athletes. AES shows 140+ CHRVA teams in the more popular age groups (14, 15, and 16). If these teams average say 11 players per team, that means there are well over 1500 CHRVA players in each of these age groups. It is simple math that Metro can’t take all the most talented players - sure they get some of the best players in the region at their tryouts every year, but it’s not possible for them to hoard every talented player and Paramount also recruits many highly skilled players with incredible potential.

This is an important point for everyone, not just those who are invested in the Metro/Paramount debate.
Metro Travel & Paramount 1s represent ~30 players in the region (2%)
The next 13 best teams represent ~150 players (10%)
The remaining 125 teams represent ~1300 players (88%)

If you are in that 88% the vast majority of the advice in this forum that focus on the 2-3 "top tier" clubs is unhelpful. It’s even unhelpful to most of the top 10% because only 30 players can make the top 2 teams in the region. A lot of the discussion on those 2 clubs uses language like "mid tier" for other clubs and teams even when they are part of the top teams of the region. We've personally heard many parents of players we played with use the "mid-tier" language and then turn down a great team at a very good club to chase a spot on a lower team at one of those "top tier" clubs, believing it will result in better development for their player and a better chance of getting onto the top team. That thinking gets even stronger in HS where parents are sold the idea of college scholarships and easier admissions through volleyball. The reality is if your goal is to play for one of the top two clubs in the critical recruiting years of U16-U18, you generally need to be playing on one of those other top 13 teams by U15. In fact, statistically your chances of making a U17-U18 team at Metro or Paramount are generally better if you don't play for them in the early years.

+1

Very good points here regarding the numbers. I’m guilty of participating in the lively Metro Travel vs Paramount vs whoever debates, when those teams are really should only be a consideration for the top 5% of players. I suppose the reason for the attention these clubs get on these forums is that the parents of these kids tend to be knowledgeable and passionate about volleyball (or worse, living vicariously through or pushing their own unfulfilled ambitions onto their DDs).

It’s important for parents to be realistic about their DD’s abilities and potential. There are clubs and teams for girls at all levels and volleyball can still be a fun and rewarding experience even if your DD isn’t going to play in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding training, I haven’t seen anyone criticizing Paramount’s training quality. That said, the narrative that gets repeated on these forums that Paramount is taking less talented players and turning them into volleyball superstars is insulting to their players. They are obviously attracting quality athletes. AES shows 140+ CHRVA teams in the more popular age groups (14, 15, and 16). If these teams average say 11 players per team, that means there are well over 1500 CHRVA players in each of these age groups. It is simple math that Metro can’t take all the most talented players - sure they get some of the best players in the region at their tryouts every year, but it’s not possible for them to hoard every talented player and Paramount also recruits many highly skilled players with incredible potential.

This is an important point for everyone, not just those who are invested in the Metro/Paramount debate.
Metro Travel & Paramount 1s represent ~30 players in the region (2%)
The next 13 best teams represent ~150 players (10%)
The remaining 125 teams represent ~1300 players (88%)

If you are in that 88% the vast majority of the advice in this forum that focus on the 2-3 "top tier" clubs is unhelpful. It’s even unhelpful to most of the top 10% because only 30 players can make the top 2 teams in the region. A lot of the discussion on those 2 clubs uses language like "mid tier" for other clubs and teams even when they are part of the top teams of the region. We've personally heard many parents of players we played with use the "mid-tier" language and then turn down a great team at a very good club to chase a spot on a lower team at one of those "top tier" clubs, believing it will result in better development for their player and a better chance of getting onto the top team. That thinking gets even stronger in HS where parents are sold the idea of college scholarships and easier admissions through volleyball. The reality is if your goal is to play for one of the top two clubs in the critical recruiting years of U16-U18, you generally need to be playing on one of those other top 13 teams by U15. In fact, statistically your chances of making a U17-U18 team at Metro or Paramount are generally better if you don't play for them in the early years.

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding training, I haven’t seen anyone criticizing Paramount’s training quality. That said, the narrative that gets repeated on these forums that Paramount is taking less talented players and turning them into volleyball superstars is insulting to their players. They are obviously attracting quality athletes. AES shows 140+ CHRVA teams in the more popular age groups (14, 15, and 16). If these teams average say 11 players per team, that means there are well over 1500 CHRVA players in each of these age groups. It is simple math that Metro can’t take all the most talented players - sure they get some of the best players in the region at their tryouts every year, but it’s not possible for them to hoard every talented player and Paramount also recruits many highly skilled players with incredible potential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I ask how does a club like Metro that has been around since 1999 and has had a monopoly on the talent in the area only have 1 player make a national team? Moreover, how has a club like Paramount caught up to Metro when Paramount started in 2015 with only 1 team? Has Paramount taken Metro’s kids? If so, that would explain how they’ve closed the gap so quickly. However, I don’t think that’s the case. It doesn’t seem like Paramount has ever taken a player from Metro that Metro didn’t care about losing. So, I ask again. How has Paramount caught up, even though they’ve been around for 16 less years? The answer is that Paramount’s training is clearly superior.

Not the PP and not a Metro family here.

Arguing about how many players have made the US National team as the way to prove superior training is probably not the best argument. National team players aren't just trained by their club, they are the product of many coaches efforts along with a tremendous amount of personal effort by the player. Its wonderful when anyone makes the team and its never because of a single clubs training is "clearly superior".

Also, before making claims about the "clearly superior" training make sure to double check this years' Paramount U18 team and their history. On a team of 14 players, only 3 played for Paramount last year on the U17s. Of those 3, only 1 played for Paramount in U16s. That's the lowest player retention of any club that competed in CHRVA bids. So either a) The new players coming in were better than the players Paramount trained at U17 and U16 or b) The Paramount players from U17 and U16 ages didn't want to play for Paramount any more by the time they reached U18.

In terms of college commitments, of the 10 players listed as committed on their U18 team 1 of those played for Paramount from U16-U18 and another played U17-U18. None of the other college commits played for Paramount at any time during their HS years. Most of the Paramount U18 team played their U15-U17 years at one of three clubs: VA Jrs, VA Elite and MOCO.

While its not unusual for players to switch clubs during their careers, it is very unusual for a good club to have only 1 out of 14 U18 players that played for them at U16. And 0 players make it from U15 to U18. Previous threads have shown that Metro Travel's retention is roughly 5 players from U15-U18, and very good clubs like MVSA, Blue Ridge, LEVBC, etc have retention rates even higher with good recruiting success.

If you'd like confirm these facts, you can look up the Paramount U18 roster and their rosters for their U17 and U16 teams in prior years. The U18 roster is still on their website, and you can find the U17 and U16 teams via Sportwrench tournament lookups.

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I ask how does a club like Metro that has been around since 1999 and has had a monopoly on the talent in the area only have 1 player make a national team? Moreover, how has a club like Paramount caught up to Metro when Paramount started in 2015 with only 1 team? Has Paramount taken Metro’s kids? If so, that would explain how they’ve closed the gap so quickly. However, I don’t think that’s the case. It doesn’t seem like Paramount has ever taken a player from Metro that Metro didn’t care about losing. So, I ask again. How has Paramount caught up, even though they’ve been around for 16 less years? The answer is that Paramount’s training is clearly superior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:,

they are looking at the big picture (college recruitment) instead of focusing on the instant gratification (bringing home easy medals). They may have found the recipe for success in their niche market (rich families with tall players

THIS! Especially now, with portal/roster limits, every club that has 4+ college commitments for the class of 2026 (and later) has a niche market (80% of greater of players with a few standout exceptions who show up on their instagram a lot).

VAE = rich families with tall players (who can be full pay in college on a volleyball roster) based on their website & instagram to date: 6 commits for 2026

METRO Travel= tallest, most athletic/talented highest number with parent(s) who played in college thus greatest number D1 commits. Close to 100% commitment for 2026 class

Paramount 1s team= not as tall, extremely athletic, talented enough to easily win in CHRVA, do decently outside the region. Very few commits in 2026 and club doesn’t seem to care about college commits generally. 3 commits for 2026

540 undersized , very athletic, talented players who want play in college and are pragmatic about it (impressive number of D2 and D3) 8 or 9 college commits for 2026

Vajrs ? What their niche is. used to be a powerhouse in terms of college players, but very limited success on this metric since 2023/2024. 1 commit for 2026

MVSA = at HS level niche is strongest players from MOCO public and independent school teams who are not on Metro or PM. No college focus. 1 commit for 2026

At the 1-2 commits for a grad year level, that suggests partial (or even very little or ineffective) club support for the college recruitment process.

Paramount doesn't care about college commitments? Their 2027 class already has commitments to Penn State, Vanderbilt, UConn and Delaware? Agree about VAJRS, although they do have two 2027 commitments to UVA. Metro's 2026 class was exceptionally long/athletic/talented.

Didn’t their Penn State recruit jump to Metro?

2027 is this current class. The 2027 kids cycle just started on June 15th, so how has this player "jumped" to Metro? People will make up anything. That kid was on the only 2027 CHRVA player to make the USA U19 Girls National Team that won gold at the Pan Am Cup

I have no idea whether the player in question is considering leaving Paramount, but totally agree she has been super successful, committing to the defending National Champions and making a significant contribution to the U19 national team that played at the Pan Am Games.

But the awkwardly worded Paramount supporter attempts to one up Metro on these forums and on their social media accounts, always make me cringe. “The only 2027 CHRVA player….” Sure that’s true, but there was another 2025 CHRVA player on the USA team that got silver at the U19 World Championships. These kinds of posts always seem so desperate to me.

And did you know that the other player on the other U19 team played for Paramount for 3 seasons? 2 of the last three CHRVA players to make a national team were developed in Paramount’s gym. Says something even though Metro has historically had a monopoly on the talent given they’ve been around since 1999

I did know that. And the 2027 player being discussed started at MOJO but I don’t see anyone giving them any credit. The reality is that very few players start and end their club careers playing for the same club.

Paramount is entering their 10th season and is regarded as one of the top CHRVA clubs. The Bad News Bears, underdog shtick hasn’t really made any sense for a few years.

2027 players: played 1 year at MOJO at U12, then has played for Paramount ever since U13

Other player that is being referred to: Paramount was the first club she played for. Played for them from U13-U15 (she always played up).

You can clearly see this is not the same. Both players were developed under Paramount’s training.

Again, I ask how does a club like Metro that has been around since 1999 and has had a monopoly on the talent in the area only have 1 player make a national team? Moreover, how has a club like Paramount caught up to Metro when Paramount started in 2015 with only 1 team? Has Paramount taken Metro’s kids? If so, that would explain how they’ve closed the gap so quickly. However, I don’t think that’s the case. It doesn’t seem like Paramount has ever taken a player from Metro that Metro didn’t care about losing. So, I ask again. How has Paramount caught up, even though they’ve been around for 16 less years? The answer is that Paramount’s training is clearly superior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:,

they are looking at the big picture (college recruitment) instead of focusing on the instant gratification (bringing home easy medals). They may have found the recipe for success in their niche market (rich families with tall players

THIS! Especially now, with portal/roster limits, every club that has 4+ college commitments for the class of 2026 (and later) has a niche market (80% of greater of players with a few standout exceptions who show up on their instagram a lot).

VAE = rich families with tall players (who can be full pay in college on a volleyball roster) based on their website & instagram to date: 6 commits for 2026

METRO Travel= tallest, most athletic/talented highest number with parent(s) who played in college thus greatest number D1 commits. Close to 100% commitment for 2026 class

Paramount 1s team= not as tall, extremely athletic, talented enough to easily win in CHRVA, do decently outside the region. Very few commits in 2026 and club doesn’t seem to care about college commits generally. 3 commits for 2026

540 undersized , very athletic, talented players who want play in college and are pragmatic about it (impressive number of D2 and D3) 8 or 9 college commits for 2026

Vajrs ? What their niche is. used to be a powerhouse in terms of college players, but very limited success on this metric since 2023/2024. 1 commit for 2026

MVSA = at HS level niche is strongest players from MOCO public and independent school teams who are not on Metro or PM. No college focus. 1 commit for 2026

At the 1-2 commits for a grad year level, that suggests partial (or even very little or ineffective) club support for the college recruitment process.

Paramount doesn't care about college commitments? Their 2027 class already has commitments to Penn State, Vanderbilt, UConn and Delaware? Agree about VAJRS, although they do have two 2027 commitments to UVA. Metro's 2026 class was exceptionally long/athletic/talented.

Didn’t their Penn State recruit jump to Metro?

2027 is this current class. The 2027 kids cycle just started on June 15th, so how has this player "jumped" to Metro? People will make up anything. That kid was on the only 2027 CHRVA player to make the USA U19 Girls National Team that won gold at the Pan Am Cup

I have no idea whether the player in question is considering leaving Paramount, but totally agree she has been super successful, committing to the defending National Champions and making a significant contribution to the U19 national team that played at the Pan Am Games.

But the awkwardly worded Paramount supporter attempts to one up Metro on these forums and on their social media accounts, always make me cringe. “The only 2027 CHRVA player….” Sure that’s true, but there was another 2025 CHRVA player on the USA team that got silver at the U19 World Championships. These kinds of posts always seem so desperate to me.

And did you know that the other player on the other U19 team played for Paramount for 3 seasons? 2 of the last three CHRVA players to make a national team were developed in Paramount’s gym. Says something even though Metro has historically had a monopoly on the talent given they’ve been around since 1999

I did know that. And the 2027 player being discussed started at MOJO but I don’t see anyone giving them any credit. The reality is that very few players start and end their club careers playing for the same club.

Paramount is entering their 10th season and is regarded as one of the top CHRVA clubs. The Bad News Bears, underdog shtick hasn’t really made any sense for a few years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:,

they are looking at the big picture (college recruitment) instead of focusing on the instant gratification (bringing home easy medals). They may have found the recipe for success in their niche market (rich families with tall players

THIS! Especially now, with portal/roster limits, every club that has 4+ college commitments for the class of 2026 (and later) has a niche market (80% of greater of players with a few standout exceptions who show up on their instagram a lot).

VAE = rich families with tall players (who can be full pay in college on a volleyball roster) based on their website & instagram to date: 6 commits for 2026

METRO Travel= tallest, most athletic/talented highest number with parent(s) who played in college thus greatest number D1 commits. Close to 100% commitment for 2026 class

Paramount 1s team= not as tall, extremely athletic, talented enough to easily win in CHRVA, do decently outside the region. Very few commits in 2026 and club doesn’t seem to care about college commits generally. 3 commits for 2026

540 undersized , very athletic, talented players who want play in college and are pragmatic about it (impressive number of D2 and D3) 8 or 9 college commits for 2026

Vajrs ? What their niche is. used to be a powerhouse in terms of college players, but very limited success on this metric since 2023/2024. 1 commit for 2026

MVSA = at HS level niche is strongest players from MOCO public and independent school teams who are not on Metro or PM. No college focus. 1 commit for 2026

At the 1-2 commits for a grad year level, that suggests partial (or even very little or ineffective) club support for the college recruitment process.

Paramount doesn't care about college commitments? Their 2027 class already has commitments to Penn State, Vanderbilt, UConn and Delaware? Agree about VAJRS, although they do have two 2027 commitments to UVA. Metro's 2026 class was exceptionally long/athletic/talented.

VA Juniors is a bit of a spent force these days - there was a time they were a clear second in region behind metro. Paramount ate their lunch and they haven’t recovered. Toxic environment as I understand it.

VA JRS parent here, not a toxic environment at all there were rumors of that a couple years ago but that was a particualar team and coach who have since dispersed and a lot of it was fake drama. I'll agree that "Paramount is eating JRS" but also it's a completely different vibe and caoching style. So it's more about what you want for your DD in terms of environment and coaching.

Is the guy who was unofficially running the club now gone from the club?

When Liz stepped back, the club turned into a toxic mess. Hopefully it’s back on track

Don't see it turning around anytime soon, especially considering they don't have anywhere to practice this upcoming season since King Abdullah shut down.

please just state facts instead of perpetuating drama. They have a practice location.

If you think the Fieldhouse will have enough availability for 6 hours of practice per week for each team…

Isn't that where Vienna Elite has been practicing for several years? Will Jrs be bumping them out?