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 2630 Elo rating and 80-6 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 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 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
← 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.