Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or the parent is a PITA.

Should they celebrate and list a commitment made while at another club?

Seems disingenuous and falsely inflates their commitment webpages to make it appear they get credit. It could literally be an * by a name to indicate that they committed before coming to their club.

I disagree. Unless the club says something untrue, I don’t see the issue.

Last year’s Paramount 18s had only 3 of 15 players that had played for Paramount in a prior season. They “took credit” for commitments of several players who in many cases played 7 or more seasons at other clubs and only the shorter 18s season at Paramount. Was that ok since at least some were playing for Paramount at the time of their commitment? Even though they got the overwhelming majority of their training and experience (and likely recruiting contacts) at clubs other than Paramount? Because the player made the decision while at Paramount, that means they get credit?

To be clear, I don’t have an issue with Paramount promoting these players, but I think this is a good example of the challenge in trying to decide which singular club deserves to highlight a players’ accomplishments. They played a part in those players’ volleyball experience and why isn’t that ok?

Paramount did not take the credit for those commitments. I don't see one player listed in Paramount's "College Commitments" section that committed prior to coming to the club. You can go through it with a fine-toothed comb and you won't find one: https://www.paramountvbc.com/page/show/5380962-college-commitments

Metro, on the other hand, lists players who committed prior to coming to the club. If you go through their lists and backtrack it with commitment posts from other clubs, you will see that there are multiple examples of them taking credit for commitments without differentiating between players who committed prior to coming to the club vs players who committed while playing for the club. https://www.metrovbc.com/college-commitments

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or the parent is a PITA.

Should they celebrate and list a commitment made while at another club?

Seems disingenuous and falsely inflates their commitment webpages to make it appear they get credit. It could literally be an * by a name to indicate that they committed before coming to their club.

I disagree. Unless the club says something untrue, I don’t see the issue.

Last year’s Paramount 18s had only 3 of 15 players that had played for Paramount in a prior season. They “took credit” for commitments of several players who in many cases played 7 or more seasons at other clubs and only the shorter 18s season at Paramount. Was that ok since at least some were playing for Paramount at the time of their commitment? Even though they got the overwhelming majority of their training and experience (and likely recruiting contacts) at clubs other than Paramount? Because the player made the decision while at Paramount, that means they get credit?

To be clear, I don’t have an issue with Paramount promoting these players, but I think this is a good example of the challenge in trying to decide which singular club deserves to highlight a players’ accomplishments. They played a part in those players’ volleyball experience and why isn’t that ok?

Anonymous wrote:Or the parent is a PITA.

Should they celebrate and list a commitment made while at another club?

Seems disingenuous and falsely inflates their commitment webpages to make it appear they get credit. It could literally be an * by a name to indicate that they committed before coming to their club.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those players already had offers why would they move to Va Elite then? I could see moving up a notch to metro but don’t understand why they’d pay more and go through the trouble of switching. Explain pls.

Also how or what other research can be done?

3 reasons they move after they get an offer:
1) College coach has multiple players that have committed from region and asks them to play together. They figure out what works best and both go to that club. At U17 the good players are well known and most good clubs will take them.
2) The club they played for when they got offers doesn't have open-level national travel teams at U18. Either they or the college coach determine they should be playing at that level with others like them, so they move clubs. This is why there is a consolation of talent at U18 and you see so much movement in U18 teams.
Some clubs have very good younger teams but don't run open-level travel competitive U18 teams. Players and coaches that are committed generally want to play at a level equivalent to their college competition level.

Paramount was the regional example of both #1 & #2 last year, with pairs of players from NYU, Hampton & VA State joining the team and 2 other commits joining as well. VAE has had similar changes at the U17 and U18 teams in the past.

3) They are happy with the offer but want to try for something higher by using VAE recruiting. For the list of schools provided that rarely is what happens. Most of those schools start recruiting in U16 and already have players in discussions before their junior year of HS.

For research, the best source is families of players that have gone through the process. Asking them why they made the move, when they made it and what their experience was is very important.

When those players changed to paramount then they take the credit for the recruitment? And same for VAE?

What do you think about VAE for the slightly younger age groups? 15/16

Compared to training, recruitment and visibility at juniors and paramount?

I believe that Paramount only lists players in their "College Commitments" section that committed while they were playing for the club. Same with VAJRS. Metro and VAE, however, do not appear to make the distinction and simply list all commitments as their own. For example, Metro lists a class of 2025 player who committed to Penn State while playing for VAJRS as their commitment (meaning, they don't provide an asterisk indicating that this player committed prior to joining their club). They did the same thing with a 2025 Virginia Tech commit who had committed while playing for Paramount. VAE did the same for a couple of the girls who moved to their 18s team last season. A Metro marketing tool is to say that all the players on their 18 Travel team go D1, which in many years is technically true. However, a decent number of these players commit prior to coming to Metro.

The amount of hand wringing about which clubs get to “take credit” for players committing to play in college is always interesting to me.

It is true that some players on Metro’s 18s are committed prior to joining the club. Last season’s Metro 18 Travel included 16 players (one who had been with the club since 16s was out for the whole season due to injury which is how they had more than 15). Of those 16, 12 were playing for Metro at the time they committed. Of the 4 that committed before coming to Metro, 3 played for Metro for multiple seasons.

Should Metro, VAE, Paramount, VAJRs, or any other club not celebrate their athletes (particularly 18s) committed to play in college, even if that commitment happened prior to them joining the club? What about clubs that helped develop fundamental skills when these top players were younger? Tons of great players come through MVSA, Liberty Elite, MOCO, MDJRs, MOJO, etc on their club volleyball journey. Couldn’t they take some credit too, if they choose to?

What should the criteria be for a club being able to celebrate an athlete who came through their program? The club they played for the longest? The club they were playing for at the time they committed? The last club they played for prior to going to play in college?

The Penn State player mentioned above played 2 seasons at VAJRs (15-16), 2 seasons at MVSA (13-14), and 3 seasons at Metro (one on 12 Central and two seasons with 18 Travel). Who should get the credit? All of those clubs played a role in getting her to a top college program.

And it must mean something that an athlete that commits to play collegiate volleyball decides to move from the club that they played for when they committed - if it was all rainbows and unicorns, why didn’t they stay? And what about when a player is at one club and commits, and their future college coach encourages them to move to a different club for next season? Yes, that actually happens.

The reality is that very few players start at one club and play their entire club career at the same club. But does it really matter? If a club had a role in a player’s journey to collegiate volleyball isn’t it ok for them to celebrate that player’s success? Do we really expect these clubs to put an asterisk next to a player’s name on their lists of committed athletes to acknowledge any other clubs that that player might have ever played for?

At the end of the day, the focus of all of this whole club volleyball enterprise should be on the athletes. Clubs can and should celebrate the achievements of their players. Of course, that also leads to a certain amount of marketing by the clubs who are hoping to attract the generation of top players, but dwelling on the technicalities of individual players’ history and who deserves to claim a role in their success seems like a complicated and unnecessary thing to be fixated on. If a club wants to celebrate an athlete that played for them, even for just one season, why isn’t that ok?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those players already had offers why would they move to Va Elite then? I could see moving up a notch to metro but don’t understand why they’d pay more and go through the trouble of switching. Explain pls.

Also how or what other research can be done?

3 reasons they move after they get an offer:
1) College coach has multiple players that have committed from region and asks them to play together. They figure out what works best and both go to that club. At U17 the good players are well known and most good clubs will take them.
2) The club they played for when they got offers doesn't have open-level national travel teams at U18. Either they or the college coach determine they should be playing at that level with others like them, so they move clubs. This is why there is a consolation of talent at U18 and you see so much movement in U18 teams.
Some clubs have very good younger teams but don't run open-level travel competitive U18 teams. Players and coaches that are committed generally want to play at a level equivalent to their college competition level.

Paramount was the regional example of both #1 & #2 last year, with pairs of players from NYU, Hampton & VA State joining the team and 2 other commits joining as well. VAE has had similar changes at the U17 and U18 teams in the past.

3) They are happy with the offer but want to try for something higher by using VAE recruiting. For the list of schools provided that rarely is what happens. Most of those schools start recruiting in U16 and already have players in discussions before their junior year of HS.

For research, the best source is families of players that have gone through the process. Asking them why they made the move, when they made it and what their experience was is very important.

When those players changed to paramount then they take the credit for the recruitment? And same for VAE?

What do you think about VAE for the slightly younger age groups? 15/16

Compared to training, recruitment and visibility at juniors and paramount?

I believe that Paramount only lists players in their "College Commitments" section that committed while they were playing for the club. Same with VAJRS. Metro and VAE, however, do not appear to make the distinction and simply list all commitments as their own. For example, Metro lists a class of 2025 player who committed to Penn State while playing for VAJRS as their commitment (meaning, they don't provide an asterisk indicating that this player committed prior to joining their club). They did the same thing with a 2025 Virginia Tech commit who had committed while playing for Paramount. VAE did the same for a couple of the girls who moved to their 18s team last season. A Metro marketing tool is to say that all the players on their 18 Travel team go D1, which in many years is technically true. However, a decent number of these players commit prior to coming to Metro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those players already had offers why would they move to Va Elite then? I could see moving up a notch to metro but don’t understand why they’d pay more and go through the trouble of switching. Explain pls.

Also how or what other research can be done?

3 reasons they move after they get an offer:
1) College coach has multiple players that have committed from region and asks them to play together. They figure out what works best and both go to that club. At U17 the good players are well known and most good clubs will take them.
2) The club they played for when they got offers doesn't have open-level national travel teams at U18. Either they or the college coach determine they should be playing at that level with others like them, so they move clubs. This is why there is a consolation of talent at U18 and you see so much movement in U18 teams.
Some clubs have very good younger teams but don't run open-level travel competitive U18 teams. Players and coaches that are committed generally want to play at a level equivalent to their college competition level.

Paramount was the regional example of both #1 & #2 last year, with pairs of players from NYU, Hampton & VA State joining the team and 2 other commits joining as well. VAE has had similar changes at the U17 and U18 teams in the past.

3) They are happy with the offer but want to try for something higher by using VAE recruiting. For the list of schools provided that rarely is what happens. Most of those schools start recruiting in U16 and already have players in discussions before their junior year of HS.

For research, the best source is families of players that have gone through the process. Asking them why they made the move, when they made it and what their experience was is very important.

When those players changed to paramount then they take the credit for the recruitment? And same for VAE?

What do you think about VAE for the slightly younger age groups? 15/16

Compared to training, recruitment and visibility at juniors and paramount?

I believe that Paramount only lists players in their "College Commitments" section that committed while they were playing for the club. Same with VAJRS. Metro and VAE, however, do not appear to make the distinction and simply list all commitments as their own. For example, Metro lists a class of 2025 player who committed to Penn State while playing for VAJRS as their commitment (meaning, they don't provide an asterisk indicating that this player committed prior to joining their club). They did the same thing with a 2025 Virginia Tech commit who had committed while playing for Paramount. VAE did the same for a couple of the girls who moved to their 18s team last season. A Metro marketing tool is to say that all the players on their 18 Travel team go D1, which in many years is technically true. However, a decent number of these players commit prior to coming to Metro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those players already had offers why would they move to Va Elite then? I could see moving up a notch to metro but don’t understand why they’d pay more and go through the trouble of switching. Explain pls.

Also how or what other research can be done?

3 reasons they move after they get an offer:
1) College coach has multiple players that have committed from region and asks them to play together. They figure out what works best and both go to that club. At U17 the good players are well known and most good clubs will take them.
2) The club they played for when they got offers doesn't have open-level national travel teams at U18. Either they or the college coach determine they should be playing at that level with others like them, so they move clubs. This is why there is a consolation of talent at U18 and you see so much movement in U18 teams.
Some clubs have very good younger teams but don't run open-level travel competitive U18 teams. Players and coaches that are committed generally want to play at a level equivalent to their college competition level.

Paramount was the regional example of both #1 & #2 last year, with pairs of players from NYU, Hampton & VA State joining the team and 2 other commits joining as well. VAE has had similar changes at the U17 and U18 teams in the past.

3) They are happy with the offer but want to try for something higher by using VAE recruiting. For the list of schools provided that rarely is what happens. Most of those schools start recruiting in U16 and already have players in discussions before their junior year of HS.

For research, the best source is families of players that have gone through the process. Asking them why they made the move, when they made it and what their experience was is very important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those players already had offers why would they move to Va Elite then? I could see moving up a notch to metro but don’t understand why they’d pay more and go through the trouble of switching. Explain pls.

Also how or what other research can be done?

3 reasons they move after they get an offer:
1) College coach has multiple players that have committed from region and asks them to play together. They figure out what works best and both go to that club. At U17 the good players are well known and most good clubs will take them.
2) The club they played for when they got offers doesn't have open-level national travel teams at U18. Either they or the college coach determine they should be playing at that level with others like them, so they move clubs. This is why there is a consolation of talent at U18 and you see so much movement in U18 teams.
Some clubs have very good younger teams but don't run open-level travel competitive U18 teams. Players and coaches that are committed generally want to play at a level equivalent to their college competition level.

Paramount was the regional example of both #1 & #2 last year, with pairs of players from NYU, Hampton & VA State joining the team and 2 other commits joining as well. VAE has had similar changes at the U17 and U18 teams in the past.

3) They are happy with the offer but want to try for something higher by using VAE recruiting. For the list of schools provided that rarely is what happens. Most of those schools start recruiting in U16 and already have players in discussions before their junior year of HS.

For research, the best source is families of players that have gone through the process. Asking them why they made the move, when they made it and what their experience was is very important.

It is true that there was significant movement of 18s players between VA Elite, VAJRs, and Paramount last year. If you dig back into the Metro vs Paramount thread there is some pretty detailed discussion and analysis about the movement of players. The short version is there was a lot of discontent on both Paramount and Juniors which resulted in those players looking for somewhere else to play-some were committed and some weren’t, but it’s almost certainly true that the players who were uncommitted at the time of tryouts were already well into their recruiting process. A few players did leave VAE to play for Paramount or Juniors but my impression was that was in hopes of getting a starting position which was an uphill battle at VAE which had a core group of starters that had been on that team for years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those players already had offers why would they move to Va Elite then? I could see moving up a notch to metro but don’t understand why they’d pay more and go through the trouble of switching. Explain pls.

Also how or what other research can be done?

3 reasons they move after they get an offer:
1) College coach has multiple players that have committed from region and asks them to play together. They figure out what works best and both go to that club. At U17 the good players are well known and most good clubs will take them.
2) The club they played for when they got offers doesn't have open-level national travel teams at U18. Either they or the college coach determine they should be playing at that level with others like them, so they move clubs. This is why there is a consolation of talent at U18 and you see so much movement in U18 teams.
Some clubs have very good younger teams but don't run open-level travel competitive U18 teams. Players and coaches that are committed generally want to play at a level equivalent to their college competition level.

Paramount was the regional example of both #1 & #2 last year, with pairs of players from NYU, Hampton & VA State joining the team and 2 other commits joining as well. VAE has had similar changes at the U17 and U18 teams in the past.

3) They are happy with the offer but want to try for something higher by using VAE recruiting. For the list of schools provided that rarely is what happens. Most of those schools start recruiting in U16 and already have players in discussions before their junior year of HS.

For research, the best source is families of players that have gone through the process. Asking them why they made the move, when they made it and what their experience was is very important.

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it $13k when you include the travel costs which no other club does? It’s somewhat disingenuous to compare that total cost to what other clubs charge which is in the $7k range. Some of whom go to less tournaments than VAE offers. What isn’t clear is how much and what type of travel is included. And yes if the base fee goes up a lot it is a big deal. But I hear you saying that only affluent people with the privilege of a lot of money can afford playing there.

Anonymous wrote:If those players already had offers why would they move to Va Elite then? I could see moving up a notch to metro but don’t understand why they’d pay more and go through the trouble of switching. Explain pls.

Also how or what other research can be done?