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.
| # | Team | Elo | Record | Win% | Age | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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.