Youth Club Boys Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 39 · 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 2373 Elo rating and 49-7 record. Rankings reflect the 2025-2026 season and are based on over 500,000 tracked matches.

Run a club? Your club is already listed here with its teams, results and ranking. Claim it free to fix the details and add the verified badge.
What claiming gets you →
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
1901 MPV 18-Elite 1535 3-1 75% 18 UT
1902 True North B 16-White 1534 5-5 50% 16 MO
1903 Pipeline 14-1 1534 3-4 43% 14 IL
1904 STORM 17-Black 1534 3-6 33% 17 CA
1905 Husky 16.2 1534 19-15 56% 16 CT
1906 Impact Boys 17-Red wes 1534 5-17 23% 17 NV
1907 FRVBC 18 Legend 1534 19-9 68% 18 CO
1908 Sky High 16-Chin 1534 24-9 73% 16 IL
1909 WPVC Boys 18-Armour white 1534 4-7 36% 18 FL
1910 310VBC 16-Boys 1533 11-7 61% 16 CA
1911 Hive 18-Black 1533 18-11 62% 18 UT
1912 1W B18 Elite 1533 26-38 41% 18 WI
1913 UNION B12-Black 1533 5-5 50% 12 IN
1914 Providence Junior Pilots Volleyball Club 14-Boys 1533 0-0 0% 14
1915 MVVC B 17-National 1533 35-40 47% 17 CA
1916 Forza - Boys 16-Blk 1533 45-30 58% 16 IL
1917 Cicero Elite B 18-Purple 1533 10-7 59% 18 IL
1918 SCVC 18-Jarrett 1532 20-14 59% 18 UT
1919 EXILE East 17-5 1532 3-7 30% 17 PA
1920 Husky 15.1 1532 13-12 52% 15 CT
1921 VOLTAGE 18-1 1532 3-5 38% 18 CO
1922 Velocity 17-2 national 1532 11-25 31% 17 PA
1923 NJ RONIN 14-Sword 1532 6-4 55% 14 NJ
1924 EXILE East 18-1 1532 13-9 54% 18 PA
1925 Cicero Elite B 16-Purple 1532 13-4 76% 16 IL
1926 MTA 16-A 1532 2-2 50% 16 IL
1927 Philly Boys 18 1532 7-6 50% 18 PA
1928 SLAM 18-S blue 1532 16-15 52% 18 HI
1929 MNJRSB 18-1 1531 18-19 49% 18 MN
1930 Beach Cities Volleyball 18-Onyx 1531 4-6 40% 18 CA
1931 VVA 12-Shaver 1531 13-23 36% 12 CA
1932 SF Elite 15 Ryan 1531 22-27 45% 15 CA
1933 Vortex 16-Felicia 1531 10-5 67% 16 UT
1934 VOLTAGE 16-Sonja 1531 5-3 63% 16 CO
1935 RAGE 16-Scott 1531 4-5 44% 16 CA
1936 PalShore 16-1 1530 29-25 54% 16 SC
1937 TUVA Boys 18-Select 1530 19-16 54% 18 NC
1938 Hot Shots 15 National 1530 25-25 48% 15 NY
1939 T4 11-White 1530 2-1 67% 11 TX
1940 Mamba 16-Purple 1530 35-42 45% 16 WI
1941 Ocean Bay 18-Waves 1530 12-15 44% 18 FL
1942 HAVC 16-Black 1530 31-31 48% 16 IL
1943 Roch PaceBootleggr 16-Blue 1530 28-22 56% 16 NY
1944 IMUA Universal Volleyball Club 18-Blue 1530 4-3 57% 18 CA
1945 NLVA 15-Sam 1529 25-20 56% 15 CA
1946 Team Colorado 14-Green 1529 7-3 70% 14 CO
1947 KODA 16-Boys 1529 2-3 22% 16 NY
1948 Ballhawks 18-2 1529 3-2 60% 18 ON
1949 NVPUR 12-Javier 1529 5-5 50% 12 PR
1950 Raining Hot 12 RED 1529 2-1 40% 12 UT
← Previous1234567891011121314151617181920Next →

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.