Anonymous wrote:
What about the 6 players who left? Did they move to first teams somewhere? Maybe they prefer to be starters on first teams? Were there players who played down at 14 and decided to move up to 16? That's pretty common. Did any of them move out of the area? Did any find the commute too long? Did any want to focus more on academics? Maybe they don't like the coaches... There are many, many possible reasons why they left. If some of the starters left for various reasons, the team has to replace them with others.

Anonymous wrote:
But since the 15-2 argument is important to your premise, lets take a look at the starting lineup for the 15-2s at nationals.

Here's where the starting lineup played last year: Paramount, BRYC, VA Elite, VA Juniors, Paramount, New Player, Paramount

Paramount added six new players to the 15-2s team. 4 of them were starting at Nationals. Of the 8 returning players, only three were starting. Double checking this at an earlier tournament in the season as well, the numbers stay basically the same.

Again, if Paramount training of their 14-2s was so good that they could improve the team from not winning a bid in 2024 to getting a bid at U15, why did they need to replace 60% of their starting lineup with new players to do so?

Anonymous wrote:
I believe you have one number wrong. In 2024 Paramount 16-1 was ranked 275 (not 86). That means using your methodology, the 2024 16-1 team (275) improved in 2025 as 17-1 (179), not declined as you claim.

Anonymous wrote:
You claim that the following numbers show that the more Paramount kept its players the worse the team performed in the next year:
2025 15-2: 530 (added 6 players, kept 8)
2024 14-2: 388

If you talk about a team going from 10 to 20 (a top team), that may be meaningful, but you are talking about 388 in 2024 to 530 in 2025. We don't know how many teams were inserted or deleted between 388 and 530, and we don't know whether the algorithms changed from 2024 to 2025. A slight change in algorithms can make a hugh difference for lower ranked teams.

Anonymous wrote:
When I look at the national ranks translated to relative ranks in the region, I see that this team improved in local ranks from 11 to 7 even though the national ranks declined from 388 to 531.
2025 15-2: 7
2024 14-2: 11

Anonymous wrote:
Furthermore, the 15-2 team just earned a National bid this year. And you are talking about "The 15-2s team that showed the performance improvement year over year in your regional data was actually the only team to decline in national rank." Getting a National bid as a second team is not good enough for you?

You drew a lot of conclusions that are not supported by data. I'm giving you two rebuttals for now.

Anonymous wrote:
2025 16-2: 900 (added 8 players, kept 5)
2024 15-2: 1100
2025 15-2: 530 (added 6 players, kept 8)
2024 14-2: 388
2025 14-2: 478 (added 9 players, kept 5)
2024 13-2: 596

You'll find the a similar trend in the 1s team data:
2025 17-1: 179 (added 3, kept 11)
2024 16-1: 86
2025 16-1: 39 (added 6, kept 7)
2024 15-1: 50
2025 15-1: 116 (added 7, kept 7)
2024 14-1: 319
2025 14-1: 96 (added 9, kept 6)
2024 13-1: 211
2025 13-1: 142 (added 7, kept 4)
2024 12-1: 196

Anonymous wrote:
In national ranking, the Paramount 2s teams that added more players than they kept performed better the next year. The one team that kept more players than it added performed worse. The 15-2s team that showed the performance improvement year over year in your regional data was actually the only team to decline in national rank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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

I want to respond to this analysis because it is being quoted by some on this board as evidence that Paramount do not develop their players from their second teams.

Here are regional rankings for Paramont first and second teams since their second teams were created:
2022-2023
14-1 1
14-2 22

2023-2024
12-1 2
12-2 31
13-1 4
13-2 10
14-1 1
14-2 8
15-1 2
15-2 19

2024-2025
12-1 4
12-2 9
13-1 3
13-2 5
14-1 3
14-2 10
15-1 2
15-2 3
16-1 1
16-2 33

Based on the quoted analysis, nobody from 13-2, 14-2, 15-2 moved up to 14-1, 15-1, 16-1. That's pretty simple to explain. 13-2 was ranked 10th, 14-2 8th, and 15-2 19th, many places below their first teams.

However, based on this year's numbers,
13-1 3
13-2 5
15-1 2
15-2 3
It is likely that next year 14-1 may include 13-2 players and 16-1 may include 15-2 players because their second teams are very close to their first teams.

It is a fact that many of Paramount's second teams are getting better and better every year, and now their first and second teams are both in the top 10 in the region in 12, 13, 14, and 15 age groups. They could not get here by not developing their second teams.

I'm not related to Paramount. I'm just an observer of the volleyball clubs in the DMA area. Metro's travel teams are the best, but Paramount is catching up. The numbers are clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not related to Paramount. I'm just an observer of the volleyball clubs in the DMA area. Metro's travel teams are the best, but Paramount is catching up. The numbers are clear.

Thank you for the data. It allows an unbiased, fact-based review of performance rather than the typical emotional responses you often see. And your last sentiment that the numbers are clear is an excellent way to have a discussion.

Your hypothesis is that:

Anonymous wrote:
It is a fact that many of Paramount's second teams are getting better and better every year, and now their first and second teams are both in the top 10 in the region in 12, 13, 14, and 15 age groups. They could not get here by not developing their second teams.

Granted, Paramount's second teams are getting better. Your claim is that they must be developing their second teams to reach that level of performance. Implied in that statement is that the prior year players must be improving substantially to account for such a large improvement in regional rankings.

That is clearly not the case.

The data below argues that the primary driver of Paramount's improvement isn't their ability to develop the majority of their returning players for either their 1s or 2s teams. Rather, it is more likely the performance improvement is driven by combining a small set of returning players with a large number of new players coming from other clubs.

Here's the analysis of their 2s teams last year:
- 2025 16-2, 8 new players, 5 returning (4 from 15-2, 1 from 16-2). No players moved down from 16-1 to 16-2
- 2025 15-2, 6 new players, 8 returning (all from 14-2). No players moved down from 15-1 to 15-2
- 2025 14-2, 9 new players, 5 returning (1 from 13-1, 4 from 13-2). 1 player moved down from 13-1 to 14-2
- 2025 13-2, 8 new players, 5 returning (3 from 12-1, 2 from 12-2). 3 players moved down from 12-1 to 13-1

- 13-2, 14-2, 16-2 didn't return enough players to complete a starting lineup. (63% of the rosters were new players)
- The 15-2 team is the only team that returned more players than it added. This could potentially prove your hypothesis for this age group.
- No returning players on the 2s was considered good enough by Paramount staff to play on the 1s after at least 1 year of development by the previous Paramount coaching staff.

For your hypothesis to be true given these facts, you have to believe:
1) Returning 2s players improved enough to significantly raise the performance of the 2s team, but none improved enough to make a 1s team.

That is really hard to believe, especially when 57 players played for those 2s teams last year and instead of moving any of them up they added 27 new players to their U13-U16 1s teams. If Paramount training is good enough to move a team from outside the top 12 (bid eligible) to inside the top 12 in just one year, you would expect at least 1 player to make a 1s team the next year. Instead a lot of the new 1s players come from non-bid earning teams.

2) The improvement of the 2s teams is due to their coaching and player development both from prior years and during the current season.

Your analysis compared the performance of the prior years' 2s team to this years 2s team of the same age. But if we are trying to isolate the effectiveness of player development, we can't ask if this years 15s team performed better than last years 15 team. Those are independent events with no overlapping players.

We need to compare the performance of the prior age 2s team to the current age 2s team, because that gives you the relative performance improvement of the teams year over year, taking into account the players that move with the team. If last years team keeps more players and improves in ranking, that implies the team is improving through coaching. If last years team add players from other clubs and improves in ranking, that implies the team is improving through recruiting.

Let's use national ranks for the comparison because it is generally a much better predictor of performance, and is especially appropriate for top teams because the data set is significantly larger than the regional ranks. And as another poster said, no one uses regional ranks due to their inconsistencies.

2025 16-2: 900 (added 8 players, kept 5)
2024 15-2: 1100
2025 15-2: 530 (added 6 players, kept 8)
2024 14-2: 388
2025 14-2: 478 (added 9 players, kept 5)
2024 13-2: 596

So what's going on here?
In national ranking, the Paramount 2s teams that added more players than they kept performed better the next year. The one team that kept more players than it added performed worse. The 15-2s team that showed the performance improvement year over year in your regional data was actually the only team to decline in national rank.

You'll find the a similar trend in the 1s team data:
2025 17-1: 179 (added 3, kept 11)
2024 16-1: 86
2025 16-1: 39 (added 6, kept 7)
2024 15-1: 50
2025 15-1: 116 (added 7, kept 7)
2024 14-1: 319
2025 14-1: 96 (added 9, kept 6)
2024 13-1: 211
2025 13-1: 142 (added 7, kept 4)
2024 12-1: 196

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
Every one of these teams improved in rank, with an average improvement of 115 ranking spots.

Three teams kept more players (16-1, 17-1, 15-2) and one team added as many as it kept (15-1).
This group had an average performance decline of -21 ranking spots. One team improved slightly, one improved significantly, two decreased significantly

Why is this important?
This isn't a Metro vs. Paramount debate - although if you run the same analysis on the Metro teams you'll find they actually increase in national ranking every year, generally correlated to the number of players they retain on a team.

This is actually a Paramount vs. Paramount's marketing debate. What we are really examining is the truth of Paramount's claims about why their performance is so good.

This quote from the Paramount website is what they claim:
"On the court, Maureen felt that the CHRVA Region was significantly behind in terms of technical training, and that most clubs in the area lacked the ability to provide intense, game-like practices that prioritized skill development. Hence, Maureen established Paramount under the motto, “Practice Like You Play.”

Paramount Training = Unique, CHRVA training = Bad. This heavily marketed claim is that training is what is driving their bid and regional success.

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.

But you cannot make the argument that they are rapidly developing players. The reality is:
- No 2s player made a 1s team this year, despite having ample space for it to happen.
- The 1s teams that keep more players tend to perform worse.
- The 2s teams that keep more players tend to perform worse.
- The 1s teams that added the most players (as a percentage of their total roster) saw the most significant improvement in performance.
- The 2s improvement is coming from the same source as their 1s team success -- recruiting players from other clubs.
- The vast majority of players will leave within 2 years, most of them going to teams with lower national rankings and less likelihood to win a bid.

It turns out the opposite is true: CHRVA training = Good. And Paramount relies on it heavily to drive its success.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not related to Paramount. I'm just an observer of the volleyball clubs in the DMA area. Metro's travel teams are the best, but Paramount is catching up. The numbers are clear.

Anonymous wrote:
It is a fact that many of Paramount's second teams are getting better and better every year, and now their first and second teams are both in the top 10 in the region in 12, 13, 14, and 15 age groups. They could not get here by not developing their second teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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

I want to respond to this analysis because it is being quoted by some on this board as evidence that Paramount do not develop their players from their second teams.

Here are regional rankings for Paramont first and second teams since their second teams were created:
2022-2023
14-1 1
14-2 22

2023-2024
12-1 2
12-2 31
13-1 4
13-2 10
14-1 1
14-2 8
15-1 2
15-2 19

2024-2025
12-1 4
12-2 9
13-1 3
13-2 5
14-1 3
14-2 10
15-1 2
15-2 3
16-1 1
16-2 33

Based on the quoted analysis, nobody from 13-2, 14-2, 15-2 moved up to 14-1, 15-1, 16-1. That's pretty simple to explain. 13-2 was ranked 10th, 14-2 8th, and 15-2 19th, many places below their first teams.

However, based on this year's numbers,
13-1 3
13-2 5
15-1 2
15-2 3
It is likely that next year 14-1 may include 13-2 players and 16-1 may include 15-2 players because their second teams are very close to their first teams.

It is a fact that many of Paramount's second teams are getting better and better every year, and now their first and second teams are both in the top 10 in the region in 12, 13, 14, and 15 age groups. They could not get here by not developing their second teams.

I'm not related to Paramount. I'm just an observer of the volleyball clubs in the DMA area. Metro's travel teams are the best, but Paramount is catching up. The numbers are clear.

Anonymous wrote:
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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I get that Open is higher than National and that both Metro and Paramount make it known that Open bids are the goal, but I think it says something about the general attitude of Paramount as a club and its supporters, that they are bending over backwards to criticize these teams that won and were runners-up in the second highest division at nationals. They have been suspiciously quiet about Metro 17 Travel that brought home a medal for 3rd place in 17 Open. A PP said it further up this thread, shouldn't all CHRVA teams be rooting for other CHRVA teams to succeed? Isn't a stronger region better for all of the local clubs in the long run?

I thought it was a great achievement that CHRVA had a team qualified in every Open division at Nationals. In addition to the Paramount and Metro Open bids being discussed, MDJRs 14s had an Open bid as did Blue Ridge 13s. I don't know whether that has ever happened before in CHRVA history. If CHRVA teams want to consistently be in the running for an Open national championship, then we need more competitive clubs locally. If Paramount out competes Metro and takes over the top spot in CHRVA, then great, but tearing down Metro so Paramount can take that spot is a loss for everyone.

If you read this thread, you will see it's the Metro supporter who started by comparing the performance of Metro 15, 16 to that of Paramount 15, 16 at the nationals:

Anonymous wrote:
What about results? Metro did particularly well this year at Nationals with 17 Travel finishing 3rd in 17 Open, 15 Travel winning the 15 National championship, and 16 Travel coming in 2nd in 16 National. The other two Metro teams that played in Open did pretty well too, with 18 Travel finishing 13th out of 48 and 14 Travel finishing 13th out of 36.

Paramount on the other hand did not do as well. Their two Open qualified teams, including their much lauded 16s struggled, with Paramount 16s finishing 33rd out of 36 and Paramount 15s finishing 29th out of 36. One bright spot for Paramount was their 13s finished ahead of 13 Travel with Paramount 13s finishing 17 out of 48 and Metro 13 Travel finishing 27 out of 48.

This is ridiculous because it's like a team who won the JV competition laughing at a team who lost the varsity competition.

So it would be ok for the Metro 14s, 17s, and 18s who all finished higher placed in Open divisions than any Paramount team (even those in the “JV” divisions, like National) to be “laughing”? Just want to make sure I understand the rules Paramount follows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I get that Open is higher than National and that both Metro and Paramount make it known that Open bids are the goal, but I think it says something about the general attitude of Paramount as a club and its supporters, that they are bending over backwards to criticize these teams that won and were runners-up in the second highest division at nationals. They have been suspiciously quiet about Metro 17 Travel that brought home a medal for 3rd place in 17 Open. A PP said it further up this thread, shouldn't all CHRVA teams be rooting for other CHRVA teams to succeed? Isn't a stronger region better for all of the local clubs in the long run?

I thought it was a great achievement that CHRVA had a team qualified in every Open division at Nationals. In addition to the Paramount and Metro Open bids being discussed, MDJRs 14s had an Open bid as did Blue Ridge 13s. I don't know whether that has ever happened before in CHRVA history. If CHRVA teams want to consistently be in the running for an Open national championship, then we need more competitive clubs locally. If Paramount out competes Metro and takes over the top spot in CHRVA, then great, but tearing down Metro so Paramount can take that spot is a loss for everyone.

If you read this thread, you will see it's the Metro supporter who started by comparing the performance of Metro 15, 16 to that of Paramount 15, 16 at the nationals:

Anonymous wrote:
What about results? Metro did particularly well this year at Nationals with 17 Travel finishing 3rd in 17 Open, 15 Travel winning the 15 National championship, and 16 Travel coming in 2nd in 16 National. The other two Metro teams that played in Open did pretty well too, with 18 Travel finishing 13th out of 48 and 14 Travel finishing 13th out of 36.

Paramount on the other hand did not do as well. Their two Open qualified teams, including their much lauded 16s struggled, with Paramount 16s finishing 33rd out of 36 and Paramount 15s finishing 29th out of 36. One bright spot for Paramount was their 13s finished ahead of 13 Travel with Paramount 13s finishing 17 out of 48 and Metro 13 Travel finishing 27 out of 48.

This is ridiculous because it's like a team who won the JV competition laughing at a team who lost the varsity competition.

Anonymous wrote:
I get that Open is higher than National and that both Metro and Paramount make it known that Open bids are the goal, but I think it says something about the general attitude of Paramount as a club and its supporters, that they are bending over backwards to criticize these teams that won and were runners-up in the second highest division at nationals. They have been suspiciously quiet about Metro 17 Travel that brought home a medal for 3rd place in 17 Open. A PP said it further up this thread, shouldn't all CHRVA teams be rooting for other CHRVA teams to succeed? Isn't a stronger region better for all of the local clubs in the long run?

I thought it was a great achievement that CHRVA had a team qualified in every Open division at Nationals. In addition to the Paramount and Metro Open bids being discussed, MDJRs 14s had an Open bid as did Blue Ridge 13s. I don't know whether that has ever happened before in CHRVA history. If CHRVA teams want to consistently be in the running for an Open national championship, then we need more competitive clubs locally. If Paramount out competes Metro and takes over the top spot in CHRVA, then great, but tearing down Metro so Paramount can take that spot is a loss for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:
What about results? Metro did particularly well this year at Nationals with 17 Travel finishing 3rd in 17 Open, 15 Travel winning the 15 National championship, and 16 Travel coming in 2nd in 16 National. The other two Metro teams that played in Open did pretty well too, with 18 Travel finishing 13th out of 48 and 14 Travel finishing 13th out of 36.

Paramount on the other hand did not do as well. Their two Open qualified teams, including their much lauded 16s struggled, with Paramount 16s finishing 33rd out of 36 and Paramount 15s finishing 29th out of 36. One bright spot for Paramount was their 13s finished ahead of 13 Travel with Paramount 13s finishing 17 out of 48 and Metro 13 Travel finishing 27 out of 48.

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:

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