Youth Club Boys Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 4 · 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
151 Balboa Bay 16-White 2023 50-13 79% 16 CA
152 Ocean Bay 17-Quiksilver 2019 38-19 67% 17 FL
153 Triangle Boys 16-Black 2016 53-24 69% 16 NC
154 SCB 16-Salty jj 2015 33-16 67% 16 LA
155 Vegas United B 17-Black 2015 20-9 69% 17 NV
156 Team Rockstar 15 Sabryn 2014 47-17 73% 15 CA
157 Pulse 14 Daniel 2013 32-18 64% 14 CA
158 Sidewinder 17-1 2012 35-22 61% 17 AZ
159 GSL 17-Elect colby 2011 5-4 56% 17 UT
160 MAVS 16-Red 2009 33-14 70% 16 KS
161 SASVBC 14-Keali'i 2009 26-16 62% 14 HI
162 JAX SKYLINE 16-B royal 2006 43-17 72% 16 FL
163 Cinci Attack 17-Black 2005 39-24 62% 17 OH
164 Team Rockstar 16 Devon 2005 30-20 60% 16 CA
165 Kaizen Boys 14-Black 2004 35-15 70% 14 OK
166 TUVA Boys 18-Elite 2004 47-13 78% 18 NC
167 MOD B15-Blue 2001 40-28 59% 15 IL
168 Gentlemen of Kiwi 15 2001 49-10 83% 15 FL
169 Academy Boys West 15-1 2000 38-30 56% 15 CA
170 WPVC Boys 16-Armour black 1999 34-32 52% 16 FL
171 AZ Fear 15-Black 1999 44-18 71% 15 AZ
172 CORE Boys 14-Platinum 1999 35-7 83% 14 NJ
173 MOD B16-Black 1997 63-10 86% 16 IL
174 MVVC B 14-Red 1996 45-28 62% 14 CA
175 Cinci Attack 18-Black 1994 41-23 64% 18 OH
176 ACAD Boys 16-Red 1992 29-18 62% 16 NY
177 MTRX 16-1 1991 48-18 73% 16 AZ
178 513VB Boys 14-1 1991 39-25 61% 14 OH
179 Roch PaceBootleggr 17-Blk 1991 39-17 68% 17 NY
180 MDJRS 17-Boys black 1990 49-21 69% 17 MD
181 C2 Attack 15-1 elite 1990 51-24 68% 15 TN
182 Future 18-Elite 1989 33-32 51% 18 IL
183 MKE Sting 14-1 1989 90-23 80% 14 WI
184 Evolution 14-Elite kalea 1987 42-24 64% 14 CA
185 MVC 16-Joe 1987 39-32 55% 16 WI
186 VAQUEROS 17-M carlos 1987 20-9 69% 17 PR
187 SAVC 16-1 1987 9-3 75% 16 CA
188 Sportime 16-1 1984 26-20 57% 16 NY
189 MVVC B 12-Red 1984 60-22 73% 12 CA
190 CUVC 17-1 boys 1984 57-19 75% 17 NC
191 Academy Boys West 16-1 1982 31-26 54% 16 CA
192 RCVA Boys 18-National 1982 7-9 44% 18 VA
193 Sportime 18-1 1982 31-15 67% 18 NY
194 Uno Boys 18-Elite 1982 48-24 67% 18 IL
195 Roch PaceBootlegger 18 1982 33-20 61% 18 NY
196 EXCEL 18-N red 1979 27-22 54% 18 TX
197 Gentlemen of Kiwi 17 1979 47-17 73% 17 FL
198 SMBC West 17 Molten 1978 16-16 50% 17 CA
199 MAVS 17-Red 1978 31-20 61% 17 KS
200 CORE Boys 16-Platinum 1978 26-11 70% 16 NJ
← Previous1234567Next →

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.