Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Metro always wants to get Open bids so congrats to Paramount on that achievement, but if your contention is that Paramount 16s going 3-7 and coming in 33rd in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 16 Travel going 9-2 and coming in 2nd in National or Paramount 15s going 1-8 and coming in 29th in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 15 Travel going 11-0 and coming in 1st in National, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Let's look at the national rankings of the teams these Metro and Paramount 15, 16 teams played against at Nationals:

Metro 15 Travel is ranked 18th nationally, and they beat 11 teams in the 15 National Division, with these national rankings:
232 W, 186 W, 100 W, 452 W, 90 W, 87 W, 108 W, 61 W, 29 W, 10 W, 47 W

Paramount 15-1 is ranked 116th nationally, and their record in the 15 Open Division is:
5 L, 3 L, 26 L, 25 L, 38 L, 33 W, 39 L, 32 L, 16 L

Metro 16 is ranked 39 nationally, and their record in the 16 National Division is:
214 W, 408 W, 193 W, 169 W, 17 L, 195 W, 101 W, 49 W, 58 W, 17 W, 11 L

Paramount 16-1 is ranked 38 nationally, and their record in the 16 Open Division is:
1 L, 52 W, 98 L, 6 L, 7 L, 50 W, 24 L, 104 L, 184 W, 179 L


It's obvious the competition in Open is tougher.

I don't know the teams well, and I know the rankings are not perfect. But based on these rankings, I can make these rough observations:

Metro 15 (18) underperformed because it should have been in the Open (top 36 teams).

Paramount 15-1 (116) overperformed because it made into the Open.

Metro 16 (39) beat teams ranked below it and one team ranked above it (17), so you can say it overperformed.

Paramount 16-1 (38) made into the Open (top 36 teams), but it underperformed in the Open as it lost to a number of teams ranked below it.

AES rankings mean nothing. It’s just an algorithm. USAV doesn’t even use AES rankings to seed the Open Divisions

This is USAV Nationals Rankings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Metro always wants to get Open bids so congrats to Paramount on that achievement, but if your contention is that Paramount 16s going 3-7 and coming in 33rd in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 16 Travel going 9-2 and coming in 2nd in National or Paramount 15s going 1-8 and coming in 29th in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 15 Travel going 11-0 and coming in 1st in National, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Let's look at the national rankings of the teams these Metro and Paramount 15, 16 teams played against at Nationals:

Metro 15 Travel is ranked 18th nationally, and they beat 11 teams in the 15 National Division, with these national rankings:
232 W, 186 W, 100 W, 452 W, 90 W, 87 W, 108 W, 61 W, 29 W, 10 W, 47 W

Paramount 15-1 is ranked 116th nationally, and their record in the 15 Open Division is:
5 L, 3 L, 26 L, 25 L, 38 L, 33 W, 39 L, 32 L, 16 L

Metro 16 is ranked 39 nationally, and their record in the 16 National Division is:
214 W, 408 W, 193 W, 169 W, 17 L, 195 W, 101 W, 49 W, 58 W, 17 W, 11 L

Paramount 16-1 is ranked 38 nationally, and their record in the 16 Open Division is:
1 L, 52 W, 98 L, 6 L, 7 L, 50 W, 24 L, 104 L, 184 W, 179 L


It's obvious the competition in Open is tougher.

I don't know the teams well, and I know the rankings are not perfect. But based on these rankings, I can make these rough observations:

Metro 15 (18) underperformed because it should have been in the Open (top 36 teams).

Paramount 15-1 (116) overperformed because it made into the Open.

Metro 16 (39) beat teams ranked below it and one team ranked above it (17), so you can say it overperformed.

Paramount 16-1 (38) made into the Open (top 36 teams), but it underperformed in the Open as it lost to a number of teams ranked below it.

AES rankings mean nothing. It’s just an algorithm. USAV doesn’t even use AES rankings to seed the Open Divisions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Metro always wants to get Open bids so congrats to Paramount on that achievement, but if your contention is that Paramount 16s going 3-7 and coming in 33rd in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 16 Travel going 9-2 and coming in 2nd in National or Paramount 15s going 1-8 and coming in 29th in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 15 Travel going 11-0 and coming in 1st in National, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Let's look at the national rankings of the teams these Metro and Paramount 15, 16 teams played against at Nationals:

Metro 15 Travel is ranked 18th nationally, and they beat 11 teams in the 15 National Division, with these national rankings:
232 W, 186 W, 100 W, 452 W, 90 W, 87 W, 108 W, 61 W, 29 W, 10 W, 47 W

Paramount 15-1 is ranked 116th nationally, and their record in the 15 Open Division is:
5 L, 3 L, 26 L, 25 L, 38 L, 33 W, 39 L, 32 L, 16 L

Metro 16 is ranked 39 nationally, and their record in the 16 National Division is:
214 W, 408 W, 193 W, 169 W, 17 L, 195 W, 101 W, 49 W, 58 W, 17 W, 11 L

Paramount 16-1 is ranked 38 nationally, and their record in the 16 Open Division is:
1 L, 52 W, 98 L, 6 L, 7 L, 50 W, 24 L, 104 L, 184 W, 179 L


It's obvious the competition in Open is tougher.

I don't know the teams well, and I know the rankings are not perfect. But based on these rankings, I can make these rough observations:

Metro 15 (18) underperformed because it should have been in the Open (top 36 teams).

Paramount 15-1 (116) overperformed because it made into the Open.

Metro 16 (39) beat teams ranked below it and one team ranked above it (17), so you can say it overperformed.

Paramount 16-1 (38) made into the Open (top 36 teams), but it underperformed in the Open as it lost to a number of teams ranked below it.

Anonymous wrote:Of course Metro always wants to get Open bids so congrats to Paramount on that achievement, but if your contention is that Paramount 16s going 3-7 and coming in 33rd in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 16 Travel going 9-2 and coming in 2nd in National or Paramount 15s going 1-8 and coming in 29th in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 15 Travel going 11-0 and coming in 1st in National, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last place in gold (Open) is still better than first place in silver (National), right?

The question that should be asked is that why Metro 15 and 16, with so much talent, didn't even qualify for Open.

I guess as an academic exercise, every team in Open is better than every team in National, and every team in National is better than every team in USA, and on and on. But if you know anything about club volleyball (or sports in general), you know it’s never that clear cut. The “stronger” team doesn’t always win and the performance of a team at any given event requires playing well at the right times, staying injury free, and perhaps a little luck. This applies to getting an Open bid (or any bid, really) or doing well at Nationals. Since we live in the real world, there are a lot of blurred lines.

Depending on the divisions, I think there are often a lot of pretty similar teams in adjacent divisions. For example, I’d argue that the top half of the USA division in almost every age group at Nationals is stronger than the bottom half of the National division in that same age group. Bids only available at qualifiers are much harder to get than the ones the regions allocate.

Even in Open it’s not always the strongest team on paper that wins. In 2022, Alamo 15 Premier didn’t earn an open bid at a qualifier but they applied for and got one of the at large bids. They were seeded 28th at the start of the tournament but ended up winning the 15 Open national championship. I don’t think they had the most talent or were the “best” 15s team in the country that year, but they did what they needed to do to win the national championship.
https://results.advancedeventsystems.com/event/PTAwMDAwMjU5MjA90/divisions/116741/standings

In terms of the Metro vs Paramount debate, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that the Paramount 16s had more talent than Metro 16 Travel? I am aware of two times that these teams played head-to-head this past season. At MAPL Hampton, Paramount 16s beat Metro 16 Travel 23-25, 25-22, 15-7. At Bid Regionals Metro 16 Travel bested Paramount 16s 25-18, 25-12. Like I said, blurred lines.

Of course Metro always wants to get Open bids so congrats to Paramount on that achievement, but if your contention is that Paramount 16s going 3-7 and coming in 33rd in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 16 Travel going 9-2 and coming in 2nd in National or Paramount 15s going 1-8 and coming in 29th in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 15 Travel going 11-0 and coming in 1st in National, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

+1
This discussion is so weird. We are talking about two of the top clubs in the region, both of which have extremely talented players on their rosters. If they played against each other all the time, one would win some games, the other would win other games. Both would crush teams like MOCO, so there is really no dispute that they are better than MOCO. But that's not enough for some folks: Metro must be better than Paramount or Paramount must be better than Metro. As an outsider, I see this debate as parents of either club trying to justify their decision to play for either club. If the other club is slightly better, they see it as a personal failure. This insecurity is what fuels this never-ending discussion.

Let the players celebrate a good game every time they meet on the court. Stop turning this into a toxic environment where one team or the other must win. Ten years from now the result of each individual game won't matter much. But the players will remember either the joy of playing volleyball or how toxic each of their game was. What do you want your players to remember?

To say Paramount would "crush" another club and immediately tell everyone to to "Stop turning this into a toxic environment where one team or the other must win", you are projecting exactly the same behavior you are claiming is toxic.

So I ask you, please "stop turning this into a toxic environment where one team or the other must win." It was good advice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last place in gold (Open) is still better than first place in silver (National), right?

The question that should be asked is that why Metro 15 and 16, with so much talent, didn't even qualify for Open.

I guess as an academic exercise, every team in Open is better than every team in National, and every team in National is better than every team in USA, and on and on. But if you know anything about club volleyball (or sports in general), you know it’s never that clear cut. The “stronger” team doesn’t always win and the performance of a team at any given event requires playing well at the right times, staying injury free, and perhaps a little luck. This applies to getting an Open bid (or any bid, really) or doing well at Nationals. Since we live in the real world, there are a lot of blurred lines.

Depending on the divisions, I think there are often a lot of pretty similar teams in adjacent divisions. For example, I’d argue that the top half of the USA division in almost every age group at Nationals is stronger than the bottom half of the National division in that same age group. Bids only available at qualifiers are much harder to get than the ones the regions allocate.

Even in Open it’s not always the strongest team on paper that wins. In 2022, Alamo 15 Premier didn’t earn an open bid at a qualifier but they applied for and got one of the at large bids. They were seeded 28th at the start of the tournament but ended up winning the 15 Open national championship. I don’t think they had the most talent or were the “best” 15s team in the country that year, but they did what they needed to do to win the national championship.
https://results.advancedeventsystems.com/event/PTAwMDAwMjU5MjA90/divisions/116741/standings

In terms of the Metro vs Paramount debate, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that the Paramount 16s had more talent than Metro 16 Travel? I am aware of two times that these teams played head-to-head this past season. At MAPL Hampton, Paramount 16s beat Metro 16 Travel 23-25, 25-22, 15-7. At Bid Regionals Metro 16 Travel bested Paramount 16s 25-18, 25-12. Like I said, blurred lines.

Of course Metro always wants to get Open bids so congrats to Paramount on that achievement, but if your contention is that Paramount 16s going 3-7 and coming in 33rd in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 16 Travel going 9-2 and coming in 2nd in National or Paramount 15s going 1-8 and coming in 29th in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 15 Travel going 11-0 and coming in 1st in National, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

+1
This discussion is so weird. We are talking about two of the top clubs in the region, both of which have extremely talented players on their rosters. If they played against each other all the time, one would win some games, the other would win other games. Both would crush teams like MOCO, so there is really no dispute that they are better than MOCO. But that's not enough for some folks: Metro must be better than Paramount or Paramount must be better than Metro. As an outsider, I see this debate as parents of either club trying to justify their decision to play for either club. If the other club is slightly better, they see it as a personal failure. This insecurity is what fuels this never-ending discussion.

Let the players celebrate a good game every time they meet on the court. Stop turning this into a toxic environment where one team or the other must win. Ten years from now the result of each individual game won't matter much. But the players will remember either the joy of playing volleyball or how toxic each of their game was. What do you want your players to remember?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last place in gold (Open) is still better than first place in silver (National), right?

The question that should be asked is that why Metro 15 and 16, with so much talent, didn't even qualify for Open.

I guess as an academic exercise, every team in Open is better than every team in National, and every team in National is better than every team in USA, and on and on. But if you know anything about club volleyball (or sports in general), you know it’s never that clear cut. The “stronger” team doesn’t always win and the performance of a team at any given event requires playing well at the right times, staying injury free, and perhaps a little luck. This applies to getting an Open bid (or any bid, really) or doing well at Nationals. Since we live in the real world, there are a lot of blurred lines.

Depending on the divisions, I think there are often a lot of pretty similar teams in adjacent divisions. For example, I’d argue that the top half of the USA division in almost every age group at Nationals is stronger than the bottom half of the National division in that same age group. Bids only available at qualifiers are much harder to get than the ones the regions allocate.

Even in Open it’s not always the strongest team on paper that wins. In 2022, Alamo 15 Premier didn’t earn an open bid at a qualifier but they applied for and got one of the at large bids. They were seeded 28th at the start of the tournament but ended up winning the 15 Open national championship. I don’t think they had the most talent or were the “best” 15s team in the country that year, but they did what they needed to do to win the national championship.
https://results.advancedeventsystems.com/event/PTAwMDAwMjU5MjA90/divisions/116741/standings

In terms of the Metro vs Paramount debate, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that the Paramount 16s had more talent than Metro 16 Travel? I am aware of two times that these teams played head-to-head this past season. At MAPL Hampton, Paramount 16s beat Metro 16 Travel 23-25, 25-22, 15-7. At Bid Regionals Metro 16 Travel bested Paramount 16s 25-18, 25-12. Like I said, blurred lines.

Of course Metro always wants to get Open bids so congrats to Paramount on that achievement, but if your contention is that Paramount 16s going 3-7 and coming in 33rd in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 16 Travel going 9-2 and coming in 2nd in National or Paramount 15s going 1-8 and coming in 29th in Open was a better tournament performance than Metro 15 Travel going 11-0 and coming in 1st in National, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Anonymous wrote:Last place in gold (Open) is still better than first place in silver (National), right?

The question that should be asked is that why Metro 15 and 16, with so much talent, didn't even qualify for Open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to add that if you look at the top clubs in top volleyball regions—such as A5, Legacy, and Circle City—you’ll see that their top teams play in Open, their second teams in USA, and their third teams in American, Liberty, or Freedom divisions. They have a pyramid system where players can move up or down based on their development. This is a stable and proven system for success.

Paramount is moving in this direction. Their 15-1 team played in Open, 15-2 in National, 14-1 in National, and 14-2 in Freedom. Now, they’re adding 14-3 and 15-3 teams. With their own gym and the growing popularity of volleyball, it's not hard to predict that they'll add 11-3, 12-3, and 13-3 teams in the coming years.

Currently, Metro is only good for the top two players at each position and age group. It's not even good for the third-best players in those categories. Metro is adding 15-2, 16-2, and 17-2 teams, but as I wrote above, the success of these teams depends on how much the club invests in them—the quality of coaches they hire and the training they provide. They haven't done much to their regional teams.

I agree that the "pyramid" you describe is a proven recipe for large club success. Its the same structure used by the hundreds of clubs that have multiple teams in an age group, including many in CHRVA. But neither Metro or Paramount actually use the pyramid structure, even though Paramount added 2s teams. For this years' Paramount 13-1, 14-1 & 15-1 teams, I couldn't find a single player who moved up to the 1s from the prior years 2s.

Look at the 14-1, 15-1 and 16-1 makeups for this year compared to their rosters last year:
- 2025 16-1, 6 new players, 7 returning. No players moved up from 15-2 to 16-1.
- 2025 15-1, 7 new players, 7 returning. No players moved up from 14-2 to 15-1.
- 2025 14-1, 9 new players, 6 returning. No players move up from 13-2 to 14-1

Out of 42 players on those three teams, 22 (52%) seem to have come from outside of Paramount 2024 club teams. If you look back at 2023, its over 75% and after 3 years (2023) it probably exceeds 85%. This matches another PP who covered their 18s team in depth, showing only 1 player played on their 16s -- which means 93% of their 18s players came from another club. That PP pointed out that one of two things is happening: either Paramount's top players are leaving of their own choice, or Paramount is replacing them with better players trained by other clubs.

It is rare for a club to have multiple teams and no movement up to the 1s from their 2s, especially when the 1s teams are losing between 1/3 and 1/2 of their players each year. All of the clubs you mentioned from outside CHRVA do move players regularly because they focus on player development more. A big driver of that development is roster sizes. Paramount averages 14 players on their 1s teams. Circle City and Legacy average 11, and their 2s+ rosters are smaller than their 1s. Paramount's 2s teams averaged 15 players. Roster sizes are a big reason why "pyramids" work.

Paramount's real pyramid relies on other clubs in the region to keep developing talent that they can pull away and use for 1-2 years to win. Essentially, Paramount's pouring water in the top of the boat (bring in new players from other clubs) as fast as they can, while water is leaking out of the bottom of the boat (existing players leaving b/c of environment or lack of development). The boat's still afloat, but if they don't fix the leak it will eventually sink.

Metro Travel hasn't had multiple teams or a traditional pyramid structure. Metro is more like A5 with its "core" club (just called A5) and several "regional" clubs (e.g. Gwinnett). For Metro the regions haven't really developed many players for the Travel teams. Historically, Metro has also relied on other clubs to develop players to the point where they were Travel level, both for the U13 team and then to replace any lost/cut players in the older teams. But because Metro Travel is able to hold on to more of its players year over year and develop them at least as fast as other clubs were developing players, they've been able to sustain their performance without as severe a turnover each year. For example, 8 of Metro's 18s team played U15 with them.

TLDR: Despite all of the marketing thrown out by both Paramount parents and staff, Paramount hasn't had any success developing players from their 2s teams (and soon 3s teams) onto their top teams. They've really just copied the legacy Metro Travel model of focusing on their top player development. Except Metro Travel holds on to more of its travel team year over year than Paramount does. So despite having 2s (and soon 3s) teams, the lack of player development has forced Paramount to aggressively recruit out of other clubs to find talent to replace the roughly half of 1s players they have been losing each year.

That's why you see posts like "HOV Lanes coming to 495 -- its a much shorter drive from Maryland now!". Paramount needs to reach into the MD side to keep their talent pipeline going and clubs like MVSA, MD Juniors, MOCO, etc. that have 3+ teams at most ages and have been running U11/U12 teams for years are generally viewed as good talent developers.

Finally, Paramount's teams being in different divisions at USA nationals is directly related to how they did at CHRVA bids -- its not a choice made by the club in how they register them. Its determined by how they finish at bids. If 14-2 beats 14-1, then 14-2 would have been in National and the 14-1 in American or Freedom.

Paramount does choose to put their teams in different divisions at qualifiers, but there is zero uniqueness to that approach in club volleyball. In CHRVA, a lot of clubs have multiple teams in an age group that attend qualifiers, and virtually all of them do the same thing. You might see a 1s team in USA, a 2s team in Liberty and a 3s in America for example. Its common practice across the country, especially at AAU Nationals where the top clubs are trying to win a national championship at one of the 7 levels.

If Metro and Paramount were two companies, I would buy Paramount's stock over Metro's

If you are buying stock based on win/loss record and bids, both clubs are very good. I would probably buy Paramount stock for the short term because they are winning now, but Metro Travel is still the blue chip. But your focus weren't focused just on winning - most of your argument focused in player development.

I would short stock in Paramount if their future is tied to successful training of 2s (and now 3s) players into 1s players. When zero players move up to your top teams and half the players leave every year, something is broken in your culture and your player development pyramid. That's not going to change without significant adjustments in both philosophy and coaching. Either they fix it or the boat will start sinking.

Anonymous wrote:I want to add that if you look at the top clubs in top volleyball regions—such as A5, Legacy, and Circle City—you’ll see that their top teams play in Open, their second teams in USA, and their third teams in American, Liberty, or Freedom divisions. They have a pyramid system where players can move up or down based on their development. This is a stable and proven system for success.

Paramount is moving in this direction. Their 15-1 team played in Open, 15-2 in National, 14-1 in National, and 14-2 in Freedom. Now, they’re adding 14-3 and 15-3 teams. With their own gym and the growing popularity of volleyball, it's not hard to predict that they'll add 11-3, 12-3, and 13-3 teams in the coming years.

Currently, Metro is only good for the top two players at each position and age group. It's not even good for the third-best players in those categories. Metro is adding 15-2, 16-2, and 17-2 teams, but as I wrote above, the success of these teams depends on how much the club invests in them—the quality of coaches they hire and the training they provide. They haven't done much to their regional teams.

If Metro and Paramount were two companies, I would buy Paramount's stock over Metro's

Anonymous wrote:I want to add that if you look at the top clubs in top volleyball regions—such as A5, Legacy, and Circle City—you’ll see that their top teams play in Open, their second teams in USA, and their third teams in American, Liberty, or Freedom divisions. They have a pyramid system where players can move up or down based on their development. This is a stable and proven system for success.

Paramount is moving in this direction. Their 15-1 team played in Open, 15-2 in National, 14-1 in National, and 14-2 in Freedom. Now, they’re adding 14-3 and 15-3 teams. With their own gym and the growing popularity of volleyball, it's not hard to predict that they'll add 11-3, 12-3, and 13-3 teams in the coming years.

Currently, Metro is only good for the top two players at each position and age group. It's not even good for the third-best players in those categories. Metro is adding 15-2, 16-2, and 17-2 teams, but as I wrote above, the success of these teams depends on how much the club invests in them—the quality of coaches they hire and the training they provide. They haven't done much to their regional teams.

If Metro and Paramount were two companies, I would buy Paramount's stock over Metro's.

Anonymous wrote:
The 495 Express lanes will reach American Legion Bridge later this year. With EZPass-Flex, three people can travel on 495-Express and 66-Express to Manassas for free. Carpooling from Montgomery County to Paramount next club season will be easier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro has had its regional teams for many years but hasn’t developed players through them. You don’t see anyone from their regional teams moving up to their travel teams. At their clinics, they always place their travel players (and a few others) on the top court and pay little attention to the rest.

Yes, there are always good players from other clubs who want to join Metro Travel, but you really don’t want to be the third-best player in your position there. If you’re the third OH, MB, RS, or S on Metro Travel, you’ll likely spend the season standing on the sidelines and feeling miserable. You should aim to join a club where you’re one of the top two in your position. If that’s not Metro Travel, consider Paramount, VA Juniors, MD Juniors, VAE, etc. They all have strong track records of sending players to play in college.

Will Metro’s new National teams be successful? That depends on how much the club invests in those teams. However, I don’t think the club director has shown much interest in players who aren’t already at the top.

Additionally, unlike Paramount, which has its own 8-court gym and can host multiple teams training simultaneously in one location, Metro doesn’t have its own facility. I think this limits their ability to expand.

Metro has had a lot of players go on to play collegiate volleyball out of regional teams, especially out of North teams. If you look at Metro's college commitment page, there are 9-players from Metro regional teams going on to play collegiately out of the class of 2025 https://www.metrovbc.com/college-commitments. And there are many more from earlier classes. And players do move from Metro Regional teams to Travel - it's not necessarily a pipeline for developing talent for Travel teams, but standouts from Metro regional teams have made Travel teams numerous times.

The issue of large roster size and good players not getting lots of playing time is definitely a concern for Metro Travel teams, but I don't see Paramount as being any better. They also take 14 or 15 players on their 1s teams and certainly aren't known for making sure everyone gets significant playing time. Maybe more playing time opportunities open up when 1/3 of the team quits mid season.

As far as the facility goes, if almost 20 miles outside the beltway in Manassas works for you, I suppose that is an advantage, but Metro has long relationships with universities, schools, and churches and doesn't seem to have a big problem with finding gym space.

Having 12-18 year old girls walking out in spandex into the parts of DC that the Model School and the University of DC are located in is ideal?

I guess if Manassas is convenient for you, you don’t make it to DC much. The Model School is inside the fenced campus of Gallaudet University. UDC is in Van Ness between Cleveland Park and Chevy Chase. The median home price in that zip is almost $870,000. It’s a really nice neighborhood.