Youth Club Boys Volleyball Team Rankings

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.

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
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
← 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.