Anonymous wrote:Also not sure how Paramount 13 would get a trickle down bid from regionals since they came 4th.
FPYCparent wrote:The official USAV document (https://usavolleyball.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2024-Bid-Allocations-All-Divisions.pdf) lists CHRVA as having these allocated bids:
U11: 1x National (Paramount 11)
U12 & U13: 1x National (Renaissance 12 DE, Metro 13), 1x American (Paramount 12, MDJRS 13 Elite)
U14 - U17: 1x National (Paramount 14, Metro 15, Metro 16, Metro 17), 1x American (Metro 14, Paramount 15-1, Paramount 16, VA Elite 17), 2x Freedom (MVSA 14 Force, LEVBC U14 National, VA Juniors 15, MVSA 15 Charge, MVSA 16 Sparks, VA Juniors 16, Paramount 17, Premier EDGE 17)
U18: 1x National (Columbia 18 Black), 1x American (MDJRS 18 Elite), 2x Freedom (VA Elite 18s and VA JRS 18)
The earned bids are tracked on spreadsheets linked here: https://usavolleyball.org/compete/girls-indoor/2024-girls-and-18s-qualifier-results/
MDJRS 13 Elite also earned a Liberty bid at the Sunshine Classic, so I don't know which of their bids will get reallocated (Liberty vs. American). Metro 18 Travel has an Open bid from the Ohio Valley Qualifier. Renaissance 18 Black DC got an American bid at NEQ.
CHRVA is second in line to get reallocated bid for American (14 through 17); and fifth in line for National (14 through 18).
Updated list above after CHRVA Bid Regionals ... hopefully I got them all correct
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe people are on this forum arguing about the results of tournaments with kids who are 12 and 13 years old. What has this crazy volleyball world come to where we’re bashing the play of 12 and 13 year olds…
Agreed. I have no idea whether the MVSA 12s team is "better" than the Paramount 13-2s and it really doesn't matter. Younger teams beat older team all the time - these are kids and not robots. Sometimes they play up to what they are capable of and sometimes they don't.
Also, I think it's pretty well established that MVSA is a solid club and a good value for the money. Their coaches are all volunteers, they utilize school gyms which are cost effective, and they don't provide as much swag as many other clubs (practice shirts, warmups, etc.). MVSA also hosts a lot of tournaments which helps to offset costs. All of these contribute to MVSA having the lowest club fees in the area. That said, it doesn't mean other clubs are bad or overpriced - they are just structured differently. Choose the club that works best for you and your DD.
No matter how much I agree with most of your message, the bolded part made me smile. There are definitely bad clubs, there are definitely overpriced clubs, and there are bad AND overpriced clubs. All of them address a "need" and help club owners make a decent profit. Or a really good profit (depending how overpriced they are).
I wrote the quoted post and definitely understand what you’re saying and do agree there are definitely different degrees of quality, but I was thinking more if the players on a team have fun and improve at the game, regardless of how many medals they get or matches they win, then that should be enough for most players. If you’re measuring quality based on wins and losses, then you are correct that there are some bad clubs.
Club volleyball is undeniably expensive, but for the most part I don’t think club directors/club owners are getting rich from club fees. It’s my understanding that the margins for club fees are pretty low. Clubs make more money from rec leagues, clinics, and camps. They can pack a lot more players into a gym with far future coaches meaning the overhead is much lower.
MVSA (particularly at the younger age groups) is one of very few examples of clubs where the cost is low and the teams win but I think their model would be hard to replicate because finding that many volunteer coaches of a high quality would be tough. Understandably, MVSA attracts a lot of girls to their tryouts. Generally, they only take 10 players per team and making one of their teams, especially the top team in an age group, can be challenging.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Blue Ridge is not there because it didn’t apply to be there.
Did you check here that shows all the teams that applied?
https://www.advancedeventsystems.com/events/33602
Thanks - I did check. Was curious as to why Blue Ridge didn't apply. They are certainly worthy to be there.
Anonymous wrote:Blue Ridge is not there because it didn’t apply to be there.
Did you check here that shows all the teams that applied?
https://www.advancedeventsystems.com/events/33602
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In U15, Blue Ridge and Virginia Juniors.
Virginia Juniors are playing for sure
What do you mean? I've lost the turn if topic here so can you catch me up?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In U15, Blue Ridge and Virginia Juniors.
Virginia Juniors are playing for sure