2025-2026 Season — Page 40 · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1951 | Balboa Bay 13-White | 1533 | 18-23 | 44% | 13 | CA |
| 1952 | WAVE 16 Jasper | 1532 | 10-15 | 40% | 16 | CA |
| 1953 | Iowa Impact 16-2 premier | 1532 | 3-2 | 60% | 16 | IA |
| 1954 | Aloha 17-2 blue | 1532 | 23-18 | 56% | 17 | CA |
| 1955 | Strikers 18-Ocean beach | 1532 | 17-19 | 47% | 18 | AZ |
| 1956 | PalShore 16-1 | 1532 | 29-25 | 54% | 16 | MI |
| 1957 | TUVA Boys 18-Select | 1532 | 19-16 | 54% | 18 | NC |
| 1958 | Nfinity VBC 17-South bay | 1532 | 15-20 | 43% | 17 | CA |
| 1959 | UNION B12-Black | 1532 | 5-5 | 50% | 12 | IN |
| 1960 | Tool City 16-Orange | 1532 | 5-6 | 45% | 16 | PA |
| 1961 | SMBC West 16-Molten c | 1532 | 17-19 | 47% | 16 | CA |
| 1962 | MTA 16-A | 1532 | 2-2 | 50% | 16 | IL |
| 1963 | Underrated VC Boys 18-1 | 1532 | 7-6 | 54% | 18 | NV |
| 1964 | Ocean Bay 18-Waves | 1531 | 12-15 | 44% | 18 | FL |
| 1965 | CBVC 14-Black | 1531 | 2-4 | 33% | 14 | CA |
| 1966 | Roch PaceBootleggr 16-Blue | 1531 | 28-22 | 56% | 16 | NY |
| 1967 | Beach Cities 18 Onyx | 1531 | 4-6 | 40% | 18 | CA |
| 1968 | Top Tier VC 18-1 | 1531 | 9-28 | 24% | 18 | NJ |
| 1969 | TTOVBC 18-Royal | 1530 | 3-5 | 38% | 18 | CA |
| 1970 | Gallant 18-White | 1530 | 3-2 | 60% | 18 | |
| 1971 | SF Elite 16 Neil | 1530 | 26-22 | 54% | 16 | CA |
| 1972 | Ballhawks 18-2 | 1530 | 3-2 | 60% | 18 | |
| 1973 | PREVAIL Boys 17-Purple | 1530 | 6-12 | 29% | 17 | PA |
| 1974 | T4 11-White | 1530 | 2-1 | 67% | 11 | |
| 1975 | Upper Bucks 18-1 | 1529 | 2-2 | 50% | 18 | PA |
| 1976 | Princeton 16-Blue boys | 1529 | 26-23 | 50% | 16 | NJ |
| 1977 | NVPUR 12-Javier | 1529 | 5-5 | 50% | 12 | PR |
| 1978 | The HBC 17-S sail on sailor/americanpie | 1529 | 2-13 | 13% | 17 | CA |
| 1979 | Team Colorado 14-Green | 1529 | 7-3 | 70% | 14 | CO |
| 1980 | EXCELL 18-1 shane navy | 1529 | 13-10 | 57% | 18 | SC |
| 1981 | MPV 18 Dan | 1529 | 6-8 | 43% | 18 | SC |
| 1982 | Roch PaceBootleggr 12-Blk | 1529 | 14-11 | 56% | 12 | NY |
| 1983 | NKYVC 18-1 cyclone | 1529 | 23-21 | 52% | 18 | KY |
| 1984 | Cincy Elite 12 Crosley | 1528 | 8-7 | 53% | 12 | OH |
| 1985 | Metro 12 North | 1528 | 0-0 | 0% | 12 | |
| 1986 | FRVBC 18 Legend | 1528 | 19-9 | 68% | 18 | CO |
| 1987 | NOC 16-Green | 1528 | 20-39 | 34% | 16 | CA |
| 1988 | Salt City Boys 18 T | 1528 | 12-11 | 52% | 18 | UT |
| 1989 | HAVC 16-Black | 1528 | 31-31 | 48% | 16 | IL |
| 1990 | OCR 18 Gold | 1527 | 19-13 | 59% | 18 | CA |
| 1991 | Urban Volleyball 14-Andrew | 1527 | 2-3 | 40% | 14 | TX |
| 1992 | BAVC 18-2 kevin | 1527 | 0-0 | 0% | 18 | |
| 1993 | 1W B18 Elite | 1527 | 26-38 | 41% | 18 | WI |
| 1994 | Core 15 National | 1527 | 25-36 | 41% | 15 | CA |
| 1995 | MiElite 14-Black | 1527 | 8-5 | 62% | 14 | MI |
| 1996 | NPJ - Seattle 17-Boys national | 1527 | 3-3 | 50% | 17 | WA |
| 1997 | Ignite Boys 18 National | 1527 | 0-0 | 0% | 18 | GA |
| 1998 | WI Juniors 11-1 | 1527 | 0-0 | 0% | 11 | |
| 1999 | Falcons 10-S | 1527 | 2-2 | 40% | 10 | |
| 2000 | Molten 12-Black | 1526 | 23-15 | 61% | 12 | AZ |
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.