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 2630 Elo rating and 80-6 record. Rankings reflect the 2025-2026 season and are based on over 500,000 tracked matches.
| # | Team | Elo | Record | Win% | Age | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 851 | Circle City 14-Black | 2015 | 52-28 | 65% | 14 | IN |
| 852 | Ozark Juniors 15-Premier | 2014 | 60-26 | 70% | 15 | AR |
| 853 | EAVC 17-1 | 2014 | 7-8 | 47% | 17 | NV |
| 854 | CC Force 17-1 crossfire | 2014 | 36-15 | 71% | 17 | TX |
| 855 | VAQUERAS 12-F freddy | 2014 | 19-6 | 76% | 12 | PR |
| 856 | Idaho ONE 13-Elite | 2014 | 48-30 | 62% | 13 | ID |
| 857 | Big Sky 14-1 eastside | 2014 | 62-16 | 79% | 14 | MT |
| 858 | 864 Elite 14-Mellie | 2014 | 41-11 | 79% | 14 | SC |
| 859 | FH 15-Ikaika-daniel | 2013 | 32-24 | 54% | 15 | TX |
| 860 | ESVBC 17-Yeti national | 2013 | 52-10 | 84% | 17 | IA |
| 861 | Summit 17-Blue elite | 2013 | 36-23 | 61% | 17 | IN |
| 862 | Absolute 18-Black | 2012 | 41-29 | 59% | 18 | CA |
| 863 | FaR Out 18 Gold | 2011 | 40-12 | 77% | 18 | MI |
| 864 | WAVE 18 Darrell | 2011 | 31-21 | 60% | 18 | CA |
| 865 | Club V 17-Prodigy silver | 2011 | 55-36 | 60% | 17 | UT |
| 866 | Memphis Volleyball Academy 15-1 | 2011 | 16-5 | 76% | 15 | TN |
| 867 | ECVC 14-Black | 2011 | 41-18 | 69% | 14 | VA |
| 868 | GP 13 National | 2011 | 60-26 | 70% | 13 | FL |
| 869 | Coastal 17-Elite ash | 2011 | 59-23 | 72% | 17 | FL |
| 870 | Triangle 16-Black | 2011 | 39-33 | 54% | 16 | NC |
| 871 | Apex 16-1 | 2011 | 12-9 | 57% | 16 | GA |
| 872 | MPV 15-National green | 2010 | 61-28 | 69% | 15 | UT |
| 873 | HPSTL 18 Royal | 2010 | 31-23 | 57% | 18 | MO |
| 874 | NOVA Juniors 17-S navy | 2010 | 41-20 | 67% | 17 | OH |
| 875 | FORZA1 NORTH 18 ONE | 2010 | 33-22 | 60% | 18 | CA |
| 876 | Dallas Skyline 18 Royal | 2010 | 29-16 | 64% | 18 | TX |
| 877 | Munciana 12 Peppers | 2010 | 43-27 | 61% | 12 | IN |
| 878 | Blue Ridge Volleyball Association 15-Blue | 2009 | 46-19 | 71% | 15 | VA |
| 879 | 575 14-Lpe tiffany | 2009 | 51-22 | 70% | 14 | GA |
| 880 | DYNASTY 14-Blue | 2009 | 38-26 | 59% | 14 | KS |
| 881 | Ethos 16-Elite - pam | 2009 | 58-6 | 91% | 16 | TN |
| 882 | ACAD 16-Red | 2008 | 43-20 | 68% | 16 | NY |
| 883 | Rev 17-1 raptors | 2008 | 37-32 | 54% | 17 | IN |
| 884 | Club V 15-Prodigy stephanie | 2008 | 22-16 | 58% | 15 | UT |
| 885 | VA Juniors 17-Elite | 2008 | 39-26 | 60% | 17 | VA |
| 886 | OPVC 13-Hineline | 2008 | 39-23 | 63% | 13 | OH |
| 887 | Metro VBC 17-Pink | 2007 | 31-32 | 49% | 17 | IN |
| 888 | A5 17 Angel | 2007 | 39-14 | 74% | 17 | GA |
| 889 | IMGA Ascender Elite 17-1 | 2007 | 42-17 | 71% | 17 | FL |
| 890 | Triangle 18-Black | 2007 | 36-26 | 58% | 18 | NC |
| 891 | VAQUE 13-1 | 2007 | 8-1 | 89% | 13 | PR |
| 892 | Mintonette Sports 16-2 | 2007 | 45-33 | 58% | 16 | OH |
| 893 | CVC 17-Black | 2006 | 43-27 | 61% | 17 | OH |
| 894 | SC Rockstar LOVB 17-Melissa | 2006 | 35-33 | 51% | 17 | CA |
| 895 | Kairos 14 Beta | 2006 | 42-24 | 64% | 14 | SD |
| 896 | HOU STELLAR 17 ELITE | 2006 | 47-23 | 67% | 17 | TX |
| 897 | Big Sky 16-1 | 2006 | 43-20 | 68% | 16 | MT |
| 898 | Alabama Perf 18-N red | 2006 | 55-21 | 72% | 18 | AL |
| 899 | Tsunami 18-1e dun | 2006 | 49-11 | 82% | 18 | GA |
| 900 | SWMNVB 15-1 | 2005 | 45-6 | 88% | 15 | MN |
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.