Youth Club Boys Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 10 · Ranked by Elo rating

Rankings last updated:

The VolleyLens Youth Club Boys Volleyball Rankings track over 4,000 boys volleyball teams across all 50 states using an Elo rating system updated after every match. Data is aggregated from multiple tournament sources including USAV, AAU/JVA, and regional qualifiers. The current #1 ranked team is Balboa Bay 16-Blue with a 2364 Elo rating and 49-7 record. Rankings reflect the 2025-2026 season and are based on over 500,000 tracked matches.

Youth Club Volleyball Power Rankings
Comprehensive boys youth club volleyball rankings using advanced Elo rating system. Track team performance, win percentages, and match statistics.
Club Volleyball Standings
Real-time volleyball club standings and power rankings for competitive youth volleyball. Compare team strengths and discover top-performing clubs.
Volleyball Analytics & Statistics
Advanced volleyball analytics including Elo ratings, match history, and performance metrics. The ultimate resource for boys volleyball rankings.
#TeamEloRecordWin%AgeState
451 PVC Sandlot 16-Blue 1829 30-12 71% 16 PA
452 NEVBC Boys 17.1 1829 28-28 50% 17 CT
453 Digs Boys 18-Red 1828 23-14 62% 18 NJ
454 The St. James Boys 15 N 1827 26-26 50% 15 VA
455 Ultimate B14 Gold 1827 47-30 60% 14 IL
456 MOD B14 Gold 1825 36-28 56% 14 IL
457 SMASH Boys 18-Force 1825 26-21 55% 18 MA
458 SF Elite 16 Manalo 1825 54-13 81% 16 CA
459 VV 15-1 1823 41-14 75% 15 CA
460 HPSTL 12-Royal 1823 38-11 78% 12 MO
461 LHV Boys 18-1 rafiki 1823 23-17 57% 18 MA
462 Victory 18-Black 1823 10-12 45% 18 AZ
463 SG ELITE BOYS 17-Elite 1823 8-3 73% 17 CA
464 PEVA Boys 17 Elite 1822 41-16 72% 17 PA
465 Elevation 15-Peak boys 1822 34-31 52% 15 CO
466 Tool City 18-Black 1821 15-5 75% 18 PA
467 Ocean Bay 18-Quiksilver 1821 28-29 49% 18 FL
468 Aspire 17 Falcon 1821 30-18 63% 17 AZ
469 Cinci Attack 16-Red 1821 34-26 57% 16 OH
470 SC Legends 14-Elite 1821 30-26 54% 14 CA
471 NorCal Boys 15-1 1820 39-22 64% 15 CA
472 Volley Next 18-1 1819 25-10 71% 18 MI
473 Maverick 18 Hangman 1819 16-8 67% 18 AZ
474 MCVC 16 1819 14-5 74% 16 CA
475 Adversity VBC 16-Purple 1819 38-43 47% 16 IL
476 SynergyForce 16-1 natl 1818 34-39 47% 16 CA
477 Kaizen Boys 18-Black 1818 29-15 66% 18 OK
478 HAVC 16-Red 1818 42-25 63% 16 IL
479 PAC 16 Drake 1817 23-34 40% 16 CA
480 GSL 15-Elect - andy 1817 46-9 84% 15 UT
481 Ohana 18-National boys 1817 21-10 68% 18 IA
482 CORE Boys 17-Platinum 1817 26-15 63% 17 NJ
483 Tyrants 15-Black 1816 27-38 42% 15 CA
484 Vandal 18-1 1815 43-18 68% 18 NY
485 Annapolis 18-1 1814 40-29 57% 18 MD
486 NorthU 17-1 1814 25-8 76% 17 PA
487 HPSTL B16-Orange 1814 40-24 63% 16 MO
488 Sky High Adidas B15-1 1814 44-42 51% 15 IL
489 CORE Boys 15-Platinum 1814 26-10 72% 15 NJ
490 Apex 18-Select boys 1814 27-24 53% 18 MO
491 SCB 13-Salty jj 1812 12-13 48% 13 LA
492 WAVE 15 Q 1812 23-32 42% 15 CA
493 MDJRS 15-Boys black 1812 43-29 59% 15 MD
494 Mamba 17-Black 1812 42-37 53% 17 WI
495 Victory 15-Black 1812 14-8 64% 15 AZ
496 HVA 18-Performance natl 1811 43-21 65% 18 TX
497 MKE Sting 14-2 1811 48-22 69% 14 WI
498 MB Surf 17-Ascis rowdy 1811 13-19 41% 17 CA
499 DallasOne 16-Blue 1810 37-26 59% 16 TX
500 MKE Sting 18-3 1810 41-9 82% 18 WI
← Previous12345678910111213Next →

Ranking Methodology

Elo Rating System

All teams start with a base rating of 1500 points. Ratings rise after wins and fall after losses, and the amount of change depends on the relative strength of the opponents — beating a stronger team gives more points than beating a weaker team. Matches are processed in chronological order so ratings evolve match-by-match.

Match Result Quality

Not every win is treated the same. A blended result quality score combines set margin (sweeps weigh more than three-set wins), point margin (total point differential, with diminishing returns on blowouts), and the binary match outcome. Dominant performances are rewarded without the system overreacting to runaway games.

Age-Adjusted Updates (Playing Up)

When youth teams cross age groups within the same gender, the older team receives an effective rating premium for the expected-outcome calculation. This corrects for the physical maturity gap that pure rating can’t see, so younger teams aren’t over-rewarded for competitive losses and older teams aren’t under-rewarded for expected wins. The adjustment is capped to avoid extrapolating into very large age gaps.

Tournament Division Strength

Top-tier brackets such as Invitational and Open carry more weight than entry-level divisions. Wins in stronger divisions earn amplified rating gains, while losses in those divisions are softened — playing up shouldn’t punish teams that lost to elite competition. Lower divisions follow the inverse pattern, so schedule strength flows directly into the ranking.

New Team Calibration

Brand-new teams enter at the 1500 baseline but have unknown true strength. During a team’s first stretch of matches their ratings move faster, so newcomers reach their real level quickly. Once a team has played enough matches, the boost is removed and updates settle into the standard cadence.

Team Data Aggregation

Tracks each team across all their participations and tournaments. Uses the highest Elo rating achieved for the ranking table, and aggregates all matches played for win/loss statistics. Filters keep gender and age group consistent within each leaderboard.