2025-2026 Season — Page 6 · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 251 | Academy 15-O under armour | 1940 | 31-34 | 48% | 15 | IN |
| 252 | NorCal Boys 16-1 | 1940 | 52-19 | 73% | 16 | CA |
| 253 | HPSTL B18-Orange | 1939 | 41-26 | 61% | 18 | MO |
| 254 | A4 Volley Boys 15-Tyler | 1939 | 32-24 | 57% | 15 | CA |
| 255 | SCB 15-Salty rob | 1939 | 39-31 | 56% | 15 | UT |
| 256 | OCVC 18 Slunks | 1939 | 25-18 | 58% | 18 | CA |
| 257 | SG Elite 15 Elite | 1938 | 20-27 | 43% | 15 | CA |
| 258 | VVA 15-Dilley | 1936 | 27-15 | 64% | 15 | CA |
| 259 | Team Rockstar 16 Jake | 1936 | 30-1 | 97% | 16 | CA |
| 260 | MN Select Boys 16-1 | 1936 | 37-27 | 58% | 16 | MN |
| 261 | SAVBC 16-1 | 1936 | 23-22 | 51% | 16 | CA |
| 262 | BAVC 16-1 boys | 1935 | 55-15 | 79% | 16 | CA |
| 263 | Outrigger 16 | 1935 | 22-11 | 67% | 16 | HI |
| 264 | Roch PaceBootleggr 16-Blk | 1934 | 36-32 | 53% | 16 | NY |
| 265 | The St. James Boys 16 N | 1934 | 25-26 | 49% | 16 | VA |
| 266 | Warren Sixpack 15-1 | 1933 | 31-17 | 65% | 15 | NJ |
| 267 | GSL 18-Elect - ben | 1932 | 36-14 | 72% | 18 | UT |
| 268 | Legends 18-1 de sevilla | 1932 | 14-6 | 70% | 18 | PR |
| 269 | AJV Boys 17 adidas | 1931 | 45-29 | 61% | 17 | TX |
| 270 | TeamLVC Boys 16U Black | 1931 | 48-16 | 75% | 16 | NY |
| 271 | Bay to Bay 15-Premier | 1930 | 38-27 | 58% | 15 | CA |
| 272 | PILIPA'A 16U | 1930 | 26-4 | 87% | 16 | HI |
| 273 | HPSTL B17-Orange | 1928 | 43-27 | 61% | 17 | MO |
| 274 | UNION B17-Black | 1928 | 32-28 | 53% | 17 | IN |
| 275 | PVC Sandlot 18-Blue | 1927 | 17-8 | 68% | 18 | PA |
| 276 | SC Legends 18-Elite | 1927 | 17-22 | 44% | 18 | CA |
| 277 | MB Surf 12-Asics | 1927 | 37-8 | 82% | 12 | CA |
| 278 | CCVA Boys 17-Jay | 1927 | 4-1 | 80% | 17 | CA |
| 279 | DallasOne 17-Black | 1926 | 24-31 | 43% | 17 | TX |
| 280 | Phoenix 17 Meehan | 1926 | 37-26 | 59% | 17 | OH |
| 281 | SC Legends 16-Elite | 1924 | 19-26 | 42% | 16 | CA |
| 282 | A2 18-Red | 1924 | 29-32 | 48% | 18 | OH |
| 283 | Team Rockstar 18 Rees | 1923 | 13-17 | 43% | 18 | CA |
| 284 | SC Legends 15-Elite | 1923 | 27-28 | 49% | 15 | CA |
| 285 | Northern Lights 18-1 boys | 1923 | 32-16 | 67% | 18 | MN |
| 286 | Northern Lights 17-1 boys | 1920 | 30-16 | 65% | 17 | MN |
| 287 | MVP 15-Black | 1920 | 29-26 | 53% | 15 | MD |
| 288 | MVP 16-Black | 1920 | 24-27 | 47% | 16 | MD |
| 289 | Hawaiian Style Boys 16-Black | 1919 | 24-10 | 71% | 16 | HI |
| 290 | SG ELITE 15-Elite boys | 1919 | 7-2 | 78% | 15 | CA |
| 291 | Academy Boys West 14-1 | 1915 | 54-51 | 51% | 14 | CA |
| 292 | Rancho 18-Black | 1915 | 20-13 | 61% | 18 | CA |
| 293 | LVC 17BLACK | 1915 | 31-15 | 67% | 17 | NY |
| 294 | 118 17-Aaron | 1914 | 21-18 | 54% | 17 | CA |
| 295 | JJVA Boys 14-Teal | 1914 | 60-17 | 78% | 14 | FL |
| 296 | MVC 18-Erik | 1914 | 54-27 | 67% | 18 | WI |
| 297 | RCVA Boys 16-National | 1913 | 44-30 | 59% | 16 | VA |
| 298 | MOD B15 Gold | 1913 | 38-29 | 57% | 15 | IL |
| 299 | MVC 16-Black | 1912 | 38-26 | 59% | 16 | AZ |
| 300 | Sanger 17 | 1911 | 13-4 | 76% | 17 | CA |
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.