Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

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 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
901 Top Select 11-Elite 2004 66-9 88% 11 FL
902 FH 13-Ikaika-toa 2004 31-15 66% 13 TX
903 VAQUE 13-1 2004 8-1 89% 13
904 FTLUTD Fusion 16-Cuba 2004 5-7 42% 16 FL
905 SWMNVB 15-1 2003 45-6 88% 15
906 DYNASTY 14-Blue 2003 38-26 59% 14 KS
907 ECVC 14-Black 2003 41-18 69% 14 VA
908 MAVS KC 12 National 2003 34-13 72% 12 KS
909 Alamo 17 Premier 2003 50-27 65% 17 TX
910 Colorado Juniors 16-Sherri 2003 19-3 86% 16 CO
911 TVC 17-Black 2003 41-22 65% 17 OH
912 Elevation 14-Medina 2003 38-21 64% 14 OH
913 Shockwave 16-Black 2003 28-18 61% 16 KS
914 Tampa North 14-Black 2003 42-17 71% 14 FL
915 Tsunami 18-1e dun 2003 49-11 82% 18 GA
916 RVC 16-Shauna 2003 40-8 83% 16 OH
917 Arete Athletics 15-Navy telos 2003 6-2 75% 15
918 CJV 17-Mizuno 2002 38-28 58% 17 NC
919 HOU STELLAR 17 ELITE 2002 41-22 65% 17 TX
920 Monon 12-1o tigers 2002 46-22 68% 12 IN
921 TX STORM 14 SMACK 2002 49-15 77% 14 TX
922 Rockwood Thunder 17-Navy 2002 44-27 62% 17 MO
923 Metro VBC 17-Pink 2002 31-32 49% 17 IN
924 FH 15-Ikaika-daniel 2002 32-24 54% 15 TX
925 ACAD 16-Red 2002 43-20 68% 16 NY
926 Epic United 13 Elite 2001 40-12 77% 13 IN
927 SG Elite 13 Roshambo 2001 33-17 66% 13 CA
928 MAVS KC 17-National 2001 29-20 59% 17 KS
929 Northeast 18-1 2001 47-21 69% 18 CT
930 Epic United 17-Elite 2001 38-9 81% 17 IN
931 ASHOK 16-1 2001 24-13 65% 16
932 Mem Metro 17-Elite blk 2000 57-17 77% 17 TN
933 UNION 17-Black 2000 40-38 51% 17 CA
934 Adversity G18 Adidas 2000 29-20 59% 18 IL
935 ECVC 15-Black 2000 42-19 69% 15 VA
936 Dallas Skyline 16-Black 2000 25-19 57% 16 TX
937 CMVBC 17-1 2000 21-6 78% 17 MO
938 CJV 15 Mizuno 1999 36-29 55% 15 NC
939 EliteVBTC 17-Black 1999 44-31 59% 17 OH
940 NOVA Juniors 17-S navy 1999 41-20 67% 17 OH
941 Synergy 15 Titanium 1999 54-18 75% 15 CA
942 Revelstoke - MVC 15 1998 13-3 81% 15
943 ESVBC 16-Thunder natl 1998 39-13 75% 16 MD
944 FaR Out 18 Gold 1998 40-12 77% 18 MI
945 Sanford Sports 16-Red 1998 51-20 72% 16 SD
946 FH 17-1 ikaika andy 1998 16-7 70% 17 TX
947 Surfside 17-Pv elite 1998 43-18 70% 17 CA
948 Mintonette Sports 13-1 1998 31-28 53% 13 OH
949 Summit 14-National blue 1998 46-12 78% 14 TX
950 Circle City 17-Black 1997 53-26 67% 17 IN
← 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.