Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Very insightful! On the Va side what clubs do you think fall in the “historically performed well” category?

Before answering, realize that there are some Paramount/Metro fans here that will tell you that its only those clubs that "perform well", but but the reality is that covers maybe 40 players in an age group and there a lot more quality players than that in the region.

Assuming you are looking for an open-level CHRVA team and not an open-level national team, (because there is really only 1-2 of those in each age group right now).

Younger Ages: American, MOJO, VA Juniors
Older Ages: VA Elite, VA Juniors, Loudon Elite

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the economy will have any impact on turnout?

It definitely is, at least from what we can see this year. DD has been to clinics/open gyms at a number of clubs. The lower cost clubs with a good track record seem to have more players in their gyms. We've seen some of the "top" players from other clubs in those gyms as well.

If you go to the MD side its even more pronounced. We've run into players who are driving a long way to try to find a lower cost club option than the top VA clubs. Lots of families are concerned that spending $6,500+ on volleyball this year may not be an option. The MD side has more options at a lower price point. Anecdotally, it seems to be impacting the close in clubs more.

Anonymous wrote:If your DD had an offer from Metro and Paramount, which one would you take?

Metro. The earlier posts in this thread about turnover at Paramount matched our understanding of what happens every year. We know far too many former Paramount players that tell us that even though they won, it wasn't worth it. Playing on a 3s team with that same environment sounds unappealing to say the least.

I don't think we would take an offer from the new Metro National teams though, at least not in the first year. Except for the U17 age, where the players at that level are all well known and heavily recruited to player together, its a big gamble to assume that the National teams will be at the same competitive level as other top open-level teams in the region. There will certainly be some players that jump from other clubs to Metro, but there are also likely existing Metro travel players that won't make the travel team that will be unwilling to take a National offer.

Anonymous wrote:
Very insightful! On the Va side what clubs do you think fall in the “historically performed well” category?

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the economy will have any impact on turnout?

Anonymous wrote:If your DD had an offer from Metro and Paramount, which one would you take?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While it is still TBD as to how all of this will play at, Paramount and Metro's dominance in the Region is going to have a significant and deleterious impact on the other clubs in the area. Paramount's 2nd teams have already earned bids to Regionals and have proven themselves to be very competitive, and Metro is obviously now trying to do the same thing with their national teams. The pull that each of these clubs have is likely to lead to other CHRVA clubs losing even more of their talent. It wouldn't suprise me if CHRVA Bid Regionals quickly turn into Paramount and Metro's 1st and 2nd teams consistently finishing some combination of 1st-4th, leaving other clubs in the area with limited bid opportunities. The simple reality is that these two clubs have clearly separated themselves from the other clubs in the area.
This is a situation that happened in many other USAV regions already. History in those regions show that when 2 top clubs attempt to create more teams at lower levels that most of the best players will choose other clubs 1s teams over being on the 2nd or 3rd team at the expanding club. This is especially true where clubs have historically had issues with player retention and/or little history of players moving up through the team levels. Even in the most top heavy regions with well known clubs (A5 for example) there are very few instances of 2 clubs consistently taking the top 4 places.

Metro doesn't have issues with player retention, but also does not have a history of players moving up between their regional/travel teams. That could change but we need to wait for a couple of years to see if they are able to develop their players to the point where there is significant movement between their two travel teams. Paramount has a history of both player retention issues and has not proven the ability to develop players in a way that moves them from lower teams to their upper team.

It also takes several years for any changes to become apparent. In 2023 Paramount added U14, U12, U13, U15 in 2024 and U16 in 2025. In all those cases, in the first year the added teams were ranked well below the 1s teams at many other top clubs (avg. ranking ~900). Of those teams, the 14-2 did make bids in 2023 but wasn't competitive, finishing tied for last place. In 2024, the 12-2 didn't make it to bids in 2024, the 13-2 finished sixth and didn't win bid via the tournament (they may have gotten an reallocation bid later on, not sure). The 15-2s finished tied for last and didn't get a bid. In 2025, the 16-2 finished tied for last as well.

The next year, most of those teams did get better and some did earn bids. However, other posters have proven that that growth came largely by recruiting from other clubs. Even with the approach of trying to recruit away from other clubs, in virtually all of the ages the Paramount 2s team finished below other non-Metro clubs 1s teams. So they are getting more talent and getting bids, but they aren't surpassing the 1s teams at other bid-level clubs.

While Metro is generally better regarded and has a longer track record of success they will likely run into many of the same issues Paramount had in launching their 2s teams. The first year will be hard, then we'll have to watch to see what happens.

If my DD had an offer from a 2s team at a good club and an offer for Metro 2s or Paramount 3s, we might think about it. But if she had a 1s offer from a club that historically has performed well, I'm not sure we would her to give up a year of her club to be the test case for if one of those new teams was going to work.

Very insightful! On the Va side what clubs do you think fall in the “historically performed well” category?

Do you think the economy will have any impact on turnout?

If your DD had an offer from Metro and Paramount, which one would you take?

The region should seriously consider moving the bid regionals from March to late April.

Once Metro and Paramount’s first and second teams earn their bids from national qualifiers, they won’t participate in the bid regionals, giving other clubs better opportunities to compete.

I read on this forum that last year, a team intentionally tried to lose a match in order to avoid being eliminated by Metro.

Anonymous wrote:

While it is still TBD as to how all of this will play at, Paramount and Metro's dominance in the Region is going to have a significant and deleterious impact on the other clubs in the area. Paramount's 2nd teams have already earned bids to Regionals and have proven themselves to be very competitive, and Metro is obviously now trying to do the same thing with their national teams. The pull that each of these clubs have is likely to lead to other CHRVA clubs losing even more of their talent. It wouldn't suprise me if CHRVA Bid Regionals quickly turn into Paramount and Metro's 1st and 2nd teams consistently finishing some combination of 1st-4th, leaving other clubs in the area with limited bid opportunities. The simple reality is that these two clubs have clearly separated themselves from the other clubs in the area.
This is a situation that happened in many other USAV regions already. History in those regions show that when 2 top clubs attempt to create more teams at lower levels that most of the best players will choose other clubs 1s teams over being on the 2nd or 3rd team at the expanding club. This is especially true where clubs have historically had issues with player retention and/or little history of players moving up through the team levels. Even in the most top heavy regions with well known clubs (A5 for example) there are very few instances of 2 clubs consistently taking the top 4 places.

Metro doesn't have issues with player retention, but also does not have a history of players moving up between their regional/travel teams. That could change but we need to wait for a couple of years to see if they are able to develop their players to the point where there is significant movement between their two travel teams. Paramount has a history of both player retention issues and has not proven the ability to develop players in a way that moves them from lower teams to their upper team.

It also takes several years for any changes to become apparent. In 2023 Paramount added U14, U12, U13, U15 in 2024 and U16 in 2025. In all those cases, in the first year the added teams were ranked well below the 1s teams at many other top clubs (avg. ranking ~900). Of those teams, the 14-2 did make bids in 2023 but wasn't competitive, finishing tied for last place. In 2024, the 12-2 didn't make it to bids in 2024, the 13-2 finished sixth and didn't win bid via the tournament (they may have gotten an reallocation bid later on, not sure). The 15-2s finished tied for last and didn't get a bid. In 2025, the 16-2 finished tied for last as well.

The next year, most of those teams did get better and some did earn bids. However, other posters have proven that that growth came largely by recruiting from other clubs. Even with the approach of trying to recruit away from other clubs, in virtually all of the ages the Paramount 2s team finished below other non-Metro clubs 1s teams. So they are getting more talent and getting bids, but they aren't surpassing the 1s teams at other bid-level clubs.

While Metro is generally better regarded and has a longer track record of success they will likely run into many of the same issues Paramount had in launching their 2s teams. The first year will be hard, then we'll have to watch to see what happens.

If my DD had an offer from a 2s team at a good club and an offer for Metro 2s or Paramount 3s, we might think about it. But if she had a 1s offer from a club that historically has performed well, I'm not sure we would her to give up a year of her club to be the test case for if one of those new teams was going to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any ideas or guesses about what impact the extra teams at paramount or metro will have? On other clubs?

Do you think players will take a 3s team offer at paramount over another club that does well? Would a player take a 2s team at metro or paramount if driving distance was equal?

Curious how or if this changes things. I’ve heard some other club directors mentioning lower clinic and tryouts signups. But that might be more about the local economy than these clubs adding teams. Or maybe both.

While it is still TBD as to how all of this will play at, Paramount and Metro's dominance in the Region is going to have a significant and deleterious impact on the other clubs in the area. Paramount's 2nd teams have already earned bids to Regionals and have proven themselves to be very competitive, and Metro is obviously now trying to do the same thing with their national teams. The pull that each of these clubs have is likely to lead to other CHRVA clubs losing even more of their talent. It wouldn't suprise me if CHRVA Bid Regionals quickly turn into Paramount and Metro's 1st and 2nd teams consistently finishing some combination of 1st-4th, leaving other clubs in the area with limited bid opportunities. The simple reality is that these two clubs have clearly separated themselves from the other clubs in the area.

This is a situation that happened in many other USAV regions already. History in those regions show that when 2 top clubs attempt to create more teams at lower levels that most of the best players will choose other clubs 1s teams over being on the 2nd or 3rd team at the expanding club. This is especially true where clubs have historically had issues with player retention and/or little history of players moving up through the team levels. Even in the most top heavy regions with well known clubs (A5 for example) there are very few instances of 2 clubs consistently taking the top 4 places.

Metro doesn't have issues with player retention, but also does not have a history of players moving up between their regional/travel teams. That could change but we need to wait for a couple of years to see if they are able to develop their players to the point where there is significant movement between their two travel teams. Paramount has a history of both player retention issues and has not proven the ability to develop players in a way that moves them from lower teams to their upper team.

It also takes several years for any changes to become apparent. In 2023 Paramount added U14, U12, U13, U15 in 2024 and U16 in 2025. In all those cases, in the first year the added teams were ranked well below the 1s teams at many other top clubs (avg. ranking ~900). Of those teams, the 14-2 did make bids in 2023 but wasn't competitive, finishing tied for last place. In 2024, the 12-2 didn't make it to bids in 2024, the 13-2 finished sixth and didn't win bid via the tournament (they may have gotten an reallocation bid later on, not sure). The 15-2s finished tied for last and didn't get a bid. In 2025, the 16-2 finished tied for last as well.

The next year, most of those teams did get better and some did earn bids. However, other posters have proven that that growth came largely by recruiting from other clubs. Even with the approach of trying to recruit away from other clubs, in virtually all of the ages the Paramount 2s team finished below other non-Metro clubs 1s teams. So they are getting more talent and getting bids, but they aren't surpassing the 1s teams at other bid-level clubs.

While Metro is generally better regarded and has a longer track record of success they will likely run into many of the same issues Paramount had in launching their 2s teams. The first year will be hard, then we'll have to watch to see what happens.

If my DD had an offer from a 2s team at a good club and an offer for Metro 2s or Paramount 3s, we might think about it. But if she had a 1s offer from a club that historically has performed well, I'm not sure we would her to give up a year of her club to be the test case for if one of those new teams was going to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any ideas or guesses about what impact the extra teams at paramount or metro will have? On other clubs?

Do you think players will take a 3s team offer at paramount over another club that does well? Would a player take a 2s team at metro or paramount if driving distance was equal?

Curious how or if this changes things. I’ve heard some other club directors mentioning lower clinic and tryouts signups. But that might be more about the local economy than these clubs adding teams. Or maybe both.

While it is still TBD as to how all of this will play at, Paramount and Metro's dominance in the Region is going to have a significant and deleterious impact on the other clubs in the area. Paramount's 2nd teams have already earned bids to Regionals and have proven themselves to be very competitive, and Metro is obviously now trying to do the same thing with their national teams. The pull that each of these clubs have is likely to lead to other CHRVA clubs losing even more of their talent. It wouldn't suprise me if CHRVA Bid Regionals quickly turn into Paramount and Metro's 1st and 2nd teams consistently finishing some combination of 1st-4th, leaving other clubs in the area with limited bid opportunities. The simple reality is that these two clubs have clearly separated themselves from the other clubs in the area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any ideas or guesses about what impact the extra teams at paramount or metro will have? On other clubs?

Do you think players will take a 3s team offer at paramount over another club that does well? Would a player take a 2s team at metro or paramount if driving distance was equal?

Curious how or if this changes things. I’ve heard some other club directors mentioning lower clinic and tryouts signups. But that might be more about the local economy than these clubs adding teams. Or maybe both.

While it is still TBD as to how all of this will play at, Paramount and Metro's dominance in the Region is going to have a significant and deleterious impact on the other clubs in the area. Paramount's 2nd teams have already earned bids to Regionals and have proven themselves to be very competitive, and Metro is obviously now trying to do the same thing with their national teams. The pull that each of these clubs have is likely to lead to other CHRVA clubs losing even more of their talent. It wouldn't suprise me if CHRVA Bid Regionals quickly turn into Paramount and Metro's 1st and 2nd teams consistently finishing some combination of 1st-4th, leaving other clubs in the area with limited bid opportunities. The simple reality is that these two clubs have clearly separated themselves from the other clubs in the area.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any ideas or guesses about what impact the extra teams at paramount or metro will have? On other clubs?

Do you think players will take a 3s team offer at paramount over another club that does well? Would a player take a 2s team at metro or paramount if driving distance was equal?

Curious how or if this changes things. I’ve heard some other club directors mentioning lower clinic and tryouts signups. But that might be more about the local economy than these clubs adding teams. Or maybe both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with inside info on what metro national teams would be like?

Metro has travel teams (very competitive) and regional teams (comparable with other average club teams). If by "national teams" you mean "travel teams" - they will likely be very competitive. You could get better answers if you provide additional background about your particular circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with inside info on what metro national teams would be like?

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with inside info on what metro national teams would be like?