Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 18 · Ranked by Elo rating

Rankings last updated:

The VolleyLens Youth Club Girls Volleyball Rankings track over 4,000 girls 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 Legacy 14-1 adidas with a 2626 Elo rating and 80-6 record. Rankings reflect the 2025-2026 season and are based on over 500,000 tracked matches.

Youth Club Volleyball Power Rankings
Comprehensive girls 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 girls volleyball rankings.
#TeamEloRecordWin%AgeState
851 ESVBC 17-Yeti national 2015 52-10 84% 17 MD
852 STVA 17-1 jordan 2015 55-22 71% 17 TX
853 Circle City 14-Black 2014 52-28 65% 14 IN
854 PEAK 18-1 elite 2014 19-13 59% 18 AZ
855 Rev 17-1 raptors 2014 37-32 54% 17 IN
856 Idaho ONE 13-Elite 2014 48-30 62% 13 ID
857 Boss CLE 15-1 2014 37-29 56% 15 OH
858 OPVC 15-Hart 2014 35-32 52% 15 OH
859 Summit 17-Blue elite 2014 36-23 61% 17 IN
860 VA Juniors 15-Elite 2013 71-16 82% 15 VA
861 575 14-Lpe tiffany 2013 51-22 70% 14 GA
862 HPSTL 12-Orange 2012 54-16 76% 12 MO
863 Webfoot 17-Elite 2012 40-20 67% 17 OR
864 BVA 16-N chris 2012 33-40 45% 16 CA
865 WSRVC 12-Henriksen/kugler 2011 11-0 100% 12
866 GP 13 National 2011 60-26 70% 13 FL
867 Triangle 16-Black 2011 39-33 54% 16 NC
868 A5 West 14 Joe 2011 51-19 73% 14 GA
869 864 Elite 14-Mellie 2011 41-11 79% 14 SC
870 Coastal 17-Elite ash 2011 59-23 72% 17 FL
871 C2 15-1 nationals chloee 2011 45-19 70% 15 TN
872 Munciana 12 Peppers 2010 43-27 61% 12 IN
873 TAV 15-Black sean 2010 42-21 65% 15 TX
874 Ozark Juniors 15-Premier 2010 60-26 70% 15 AR
875 SC Rockstar LOVB 17-Melissa 2010 22-25 47% 17 CA
876 BRVA 15-1 2009 28-8 78% 15 VA
877 WAVE 18 Darrell 2009 31-21 60% 18 CA
878 VA Juniors 17-Elite 2009 39-26 60% 17 VA
879 Alabama Perf 18-N red 2009 55-21 72% 18 AL
880 South County 13-Jonny 2009 27-3 90% 13 RI
881 CVC 17-Black 2009 43-27 61% 17 OH
882 Blue Ridge 14-Blue 2009 8-9 47% 14 VA
883 Mintonette Sports 16-2 2009 45-33 58% 16 OH
884 OPVC 13-Hineline 2008 39-23 63% 13 OH
885 Premier 16-Black alan 2008 51-10 81% 16 TX
886 Big Sky 14-1 eastside 2007 62-16 79% 14 MT
887 Dallas Skyline 18 Royal 2007 29-16 64% 18 TX
888 DYNASTY 18-Black 2007 29-19 60% 18 KS
889 A5 17 Angel 2007 39-14 74% 17 GA
890 Absolute 18-Black 2007 41-29 59% 18 CA
891 MDJRS 12 Elite 2006 66-14 83% 12 MD
892 Kairos 14 Beta 2006 42-24 64% 14 SD
893 BRVA 14-1 2005 30-5 86% 14 VA
894 MOD Elite 15-Blue 2005 37-18 67% 15 IL
895 Stars 13 Anna 2005 70-10 88% 13 SC
896 United VBA 18 Adidas 2005 30-21 59% 18 TX
897 Ethos 16-Elite - pam 2004 58-6 91% 16 TN
898 HPSTL 18 Royal 2004 31-23 57% 18 MO
899 NPJ Salem 17 National 2004 48-36 57% 17 OR
900 IMGA Ascender Elite 17-1 2004 42-17 71% 17 FL
← 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.