2025-2026 Season — Page 19 · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 901 | WSRVC 12-Henriksen/kugler | 2005 | 11-0 | 100% | 12 | WY |
| 902 | MAVS KC 12 National | 2005 | 34-13 | 72% | 12 | KS |
| 903 | Rockwood Thunder 17-Navy | 2005 | 44-27 | 62% | 17 | MO |
| 904 | SG Elite 13 Roshambo | 2005 | 33-17 | 66% | 13 | CA |
| 905 | Stars 13 Anna | 2005 | 70-10 | 88% | 13 | SC |
| 906 | Michigan Volleyball Academy 17 MVA - Rise Academy 71 | 2005 | 29-21 | 58% | 17 | MI |
| 907 | PEAK 18-1 elite | 2004 | 19-13 | 59% | 18 | OK |
| 908 | FTLUTD Fusion 16-Cuba | 2004 | 5-7 | 42% | 16 | FL |
| 909 | Epic United 17-Elite | 2003 | 38-9 | 81% | 17 | IL |
| 910 | Sanford Sports 16-Red | 2003 | 51-20 | 72% | 16 | SD |
| 911 | Metro VBC 14-Pink | 2003 | 43-21 | 67% | 14 | IN |
| 912 | Vaqueras 15-F julio | 2003 | 31-14 | 69% | 15 | PR |
| 913 | ECVC 15-Black | 2003 | 42-19 | 69% | 15 | VA |
| 914 | NPJ Salem 17 National | 2002 | 48-36 | 57% | 17 | OR |
| 915 | Elevation 14-Medina | 2002 | 38-21 | 64% | 14 | OH |
| 916 | Adversity G18 Adidas | 2002 | 29-20 | 59% | 18 | IL |
| 917 | Epic United 13 Elite | 2002 | 40-12 | 77% | 13 | IL |
| 918 | RVC 16-Shauna | 2002 | 40-8 | 83% | 16 | KY |
| 919 | A5 West 14 Joe | 2001 | 51-19 | 73% | 14 | GA |
| 920 | AP) Austin Performance 16-Adidas | 2001 | 4-4 | 50% | 16 | NV |
| 921 | LAV 15-National black | 2001 | 38-23 | 62% | 15 | AL |
| 922 | Dallas Skyline 16-Black | 2001 | 25-19 | 57% | 16 | TX |
| 923 | UNION 17-Black | 2000 | 40-38 | 51% | 17 | IN |
| 924 | Surfside Volleyball Club 17-Pv elite | 2000 | 43-18 | 70% | 17 | CA |
| 925 | Mem Metro 17-Elite blk | 2000 | 57-17 | 77% | 17 | TN |
| 926 | Webfoot 17-Elite | 2000 | 41-25 | 62% | 17 | OR |
| 927 | Victory 15-National black | 2000 | 35-18 | 63% | 15 | TX |
| 928 | MARIN 15-Black | 2000 | 34-25 | 58% | 15 | CA |
| 929 | CSDP Volleyball Club 14-1 | 2000 | 22-15 | 59% | 14 | MO |
| 930 | SMASH 17 | 2000 | 26-10 | 72% | 17 | MA |
| 931 | Tampa North 14-Black | 2000 | 42-17 | 71% | 14 | FL |
| 932 | GP 16 National | 1999 | 56-42 | 57% | 16 | FL |
| 933 | MAVS KC 17-National | 1999 | 29-20 | 59% | 17 | KS |
| 934 | KC Power 16-2 | 1999 | 43-17 | 72% | 16 | KS |
| 935 | AVA TX 16 Adidas | 1999 | 37-30 | 55% | 16 | TX |
| 936 | TVC 17-Black | 1999 | 41-22 | 65% | 17 | OH |
| 937 | MVA 17 Freideman | 1999 | 51-32 | 61% | 17 | FL |
| 938 | VQ 14-1 | 1998 | 11-6 | 65% | 14 | PR |
| 939 | A5 18 Scott | 1998 | 53-15 | 78% | 18 | GA |
| 940 | Ultimate VBC 15-Gold | 1998 | 5-3 | 63% | 15 | IL |
| 941 | Tribe 14-Elite navy | 1998 | 42-23 | 65% | 14 | FL |
| 942 | Actyve 13-Navy | 1998 | 30-21 | 59% | 13 | CA |
| 943 | TAMPA UNITED VBA 12-Black | 1998 | 51-15 | 77% | 12 | FL |
| 944 | FH 13-Ikaika-toa | 1998 | 31-15 | 66% | 13 | TX |
| 945 | MDJRS 12 Elite | 1998 | 66-14 | 83% | 12 | MD |
| 946 | HNLV 16-1 | 1998 | 19-6 | 76% | 16 | HI |
| 947 | LAV 16-National black | 1998 | 41-19 | 68% | 16 | AL |
| 948 | Summit 14-National blue | 1997 | 46-12 | 78% | 14 | TX |
| 949 | Monon 12-1o tigers | 1997 | 46-22 | 68% | 12 | IN |
| 950 | Kokoro Volleyball 17-1 | 1997 | 65-57 | 53% | 17 | 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.