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 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
1951 NVPUR 12-Javier 1529 5-5 50% 12 PR
1952 Raining Hot 12 RED 1529 2-1 40% 12 UT
1953 Princeton 16-Blue boys 1529 26-23 50% 16 NJ
1954 Ballhawks 18-2 1529 3-2 60% 18 ON
1955 Roch PaceBootleggr 15-Blue 1528 11-11 46% 15 NY
1956 Top Tier VC 18-1 1528 9-28 24% 18 NJ
1957 PREVAIL Boys 17-Purple 1528 6-12 29% 17 PA
1958 Mamba 15-Black 1528 32-44 42% 15 WI
1959 AJV Boys 15 adidas 1527 27-31 47% 15 TX
1960 SF Elite 14 Ella 1527 28-27 51% 14 CA
1961 AZ FUTURE VBC 18 AZ FUTURE Elite 1527 2-2 50% 18 AZ
1962 BAVC 18-2 kevin 1527 0-0 0% 18 CA
1963 Boston United Boys 16-National 1 1527 17-36 32% 16 MA
1964 Cincy Elite 12 Crosley 1527 8-7 53% 12 OH
1965 1st Alliance VBC 18-N 1527 4-4 50% 18 IL
1966 GSL 17-Elite - alan 1527 5-11 31% 17 UT
1967 KOKUA BOYS 16-BLACK 1527 9-11 45% 16 WA
1968 SCVC 16-Austin 1527 18-9 67% 16 UT
1969 TNT Boys 17-Firestorm 1526 2-3 40% 17 PA
1970 EXCELL 18-1 shane navy 1526 13-10 57% 18 SC
1971 Elevate Academy 18 EAVC Platinum 1526 27-23 54% 18 NC
1972 InnovativeVC 17-1 rossy 1526 6-11 35% 17 PR
1973 Crown City 17 Kings 1526 16-18 47% 17 CA
1974 SCVC 15-Mike 1526 12-15 44% 15 UT
1975 Princeton 18-Black boys 1526 7-6 54% 18 NJ
1976 Underrated VC Boys 18-1 1526 7-6 54% 18 NV
1977 FVC 16-1 1526 3-2 60% 16 NY
1978 BSG 10-White 1526 1-1 25% 10
1979 APEX1 14-A1BLACK 1525 18-10 64% 14 CA
1980 AJV Boys 18 adidas 1525 14-41 25% 18 TX
1981 SPVB 16-Delta 1525 37-23 62% 16 IL
1982 True North Volleyball Academy 16-2 1525 5-3 63% 16 MO
1983 Absolute Zero BVC 18-Rankine 1524 3-2 60% 18 WA
1984 PA ELITE 15-National 1524 5-9 36% 15 PA
1985 HO'OPA 12 1524 3-3 43% 12 HI
1986 Momentum 17-Yellow 1524 31-31 50% 17 OH
1987 Pipeline 16-Black 1524 33-22 60% 16 IL
1988 Boys Panther 16-Red 1524 4-3 57% 16 CO
1989 Epic United 17-Red 1524 20-31 39% 17 IL
1990 NKYVC 18-1 cyclone 1524 23-21 52% 18 KY
1991 South County Juniors Boys 16-Blue 1524 11-29 28% 16 RI
1992 CCVA 15-Aldaco 1524 6-9 40% 15 CA
1993 Durham Attack VBC 17 Durham Attack Warriors 1524 3-2 60% 17 PA
1994 TTOVBC 18-Royal 1524 3-5 38% 18 CA
1995 XVP 16-Elite boys 1523 10-8 56% 16 NC
1996 VAQUEROS 16-M manuel 1523 10-10 50% 16 PR
1997 CBVC 14-Black 1523 2-4 33% 14 CA
1998 Strikers 18-Ocean beach 1523 17-19 47% 18 AZ
1999 Roch PaceBootleggr 12-Blk 1523 14-11 56% 12 NY
2000 LBVC 18-Blue 1523 5-2 56% 18 PA
← 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.