2025-2026 Season — Page 31 · 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.
| # | Team | Elo | Record | Win% | Age | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1501 | The HBC 17-Sail on sailor | 1591 | 1-6 | 14% | 17 | CA |
| 1502 | ETVMR 18-1 | 1591 | 0-0 | 0% | 18 | PR |
| 1503 | SG Elite 13 Elite | 1591 | 20-16 | 56% | 13 | CA |
| 1504 | Trojan VBC 15 | 1591 | 3-1 | 75% | 15 | PA |
| 1505 | PILPA'A 14 | 1591 | 4-1 | 80% | 14 | |
| 1506 | Cincy East Boys 14-Black | 1591 | 17-6 | 74% | 14 | OH |
| 1507 | Sidewinder 18-2 | 1590 | 9-13 | 41% | 18 | AZ |
| 1508 | PVC Sandlot 16-White | 1590 | 8-9 | 47% | 16 | PA |
| 1509 | Faucons 14-Boys 1 | 1590 | 3-4 | 43% | 14 | |
| 1510 | JVBC Boys 18-National | 1590 | 3-2 | 60% | 18 | MN |
| 1511 | JAG VBC 11-1 | 1590 | 0-0 | 0% | 11 | |
| 1512 | RCVA Boys 16-National blue | 1590 | 5-4 | 56% | 16 | VA |
| 1513 | Iowa Juniors 14-Red | 1590 | 3-0 | 100% | 14 | IA |
| 1514 | MOD B15-Black | 1589 | 38-34 | 53% | 15 | IL |
| 1515 | Eclipse Mountain 18-1 | 1589 | 4-1 | 80% | 18 | |
| 1516 | RockCity 18-1 | 1589 | 17-21 | 45% | 18 | OH |
| 1517 | LKN 16-S boys | 1589 | 19-16 | 54% | 16 | NC |
| 1518 | Sharks 18-Boys navy | 1589 | 15-7 | 68% | 18 | FL |
| 1519 | Warren Sixpack 15-2 | 1589 | 22-20 | 52% | 15 | NJ |
| 1520 | WIndy CIty Premier B16-1 | 1589 | 43-28 | 61% | 16 | IL |
| 1521 | BIVC 18-4 | 1589 | 6-2 | 75% | 18 | MN |
| 1522 | FORZA1 Boys 15 ONE | 1589 | 11-6 | 65% | 15 | CA |
| 1523 | PEAK 18-1 boys | 1589 | 19-8 | 70% | 18 | |
| 1524 | Phoenix 16 Ramirez | 1589 | 20-34 | 37% | 16 | OH |
| 1525 | GSL 18-St. george josh | 1588 | 9-15 | 38% | 18 | UT |
| 1526 | Metro 12-Central | 1588 | 0-0 | 0% | 12 | |
| 1527 | FRVBC 14-1 | 1588 | 12-19 | 39% | 14 | CO |
| 1528 | MVVC YB 14 Carlos | 1588 | 12-5 | 71% | 14 | CA |
| 1529 | A-10 Boys 16-Black | 1588 | 21-30 | 41% | 16 | PA |
| 1530 | OMNI 15-2 elite | 1588 | 32-42 | 43% | 15 | CA |
| 1531 | VVA 13-Roden | 1588 | 17-20 | 46% | 13 | MO |
| 1532 | Urban Volleyball 16 Gold | 1587 | 19-13 | 59% | 16 | TX |
| 1533 | Ashland 14-1 | 1587 | 14-17 | 45% | 14 | OR |
| 1534 | GP 14-Black | 1587 | 28-20 | 58% | 14 | NE |
| 1535 | MJVA 15-3 | 1587 | 5-2 | 71% | 15 | |
| 1536 | Sanger 18 | 1586 | 4-1 | 80% | 18 | CA |
| 1537 | COAST 16-Spring ismail | 1586 | 5-1 | 83% | 16 | CA |
| 1538 | Roch PaceBootleggr 14-Blue | 1586 | 27-19 | 59% | 14 | NY |
| 1539 | Golden State 18-Black | 1586 | 36-26 | 58% | 18 | CA |
| 1540 | Tampa United BOYS 18-R | 1585 | 9-9 | 50% | 18 | FL |
| 1541 | Xtreme 18-Nat-kelly | 1585 | 3-2 | 60% | 18 | NJ |
| 1542 | Core 18 Kai | 1585 | 31-35 | 47% | 18 | CA |
| 1543 | PWVolleyball 18-1 | 1585 | 30-17 | 64% | 18 | NY |
| 1544 | Aspire 16-1 warriors | 1585 | 31-32 | 49% | 16 | CA |
| 1545 | FPVC 16 Jason | 1585 | 16-6 | 73% | 16 | CA |
| 1546 | No Limits 16-Boys | 1585 | 26-19 | 58% | 16 | IL |
| 1547 | Tstreet SN 18-Dana | 1584 | 4-2 | 67% | 18 | NV |
| 1548 | MB Surf 16-Gold | 1584 | 3-5 | 38% | 16 | CA |
| 1549 | MN Select Boys 14-2 | 1584 | 38-22 | 63% | 14 | MN |
| 1550 | Titan Premier 16 Tori | 1584 | 23-16 | 59% | 16 | CA |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.