Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 21 · 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
1001 Alamo 17 Premier 1989 50-27 65% 17 TX
1002 Piedmont VBC 16 FLY 1989 34-27 56% 16 NC
1003 TAMPA UNITED VBA 13-Black 1989 49-20 71% 13 FL
1004 M2 Volleyball 15-E1 1988 58-16 78% 15 GA
1005 MN Select 18-1 1988 27-23 54% 18 MN
1006 NorthEast Volleyball Club 18-1 1988 52-24 68% 18 CT
1007 Alabama Perf 16-N red 1988 36-26 58% 16 AL
1008 MOD Elite 15-Blue 1988 50-26 66% 15 IL
1009 540 VB 15 Elite 1988 55-20 73% 15 VA
1010 573 15-Premier c 1987 28-9 76% 15 MO
1011 Dinos 17-1 1987 8-5 62% 17 WA
1012 Rhythm 15 Dasia 1987 46-17 72% 15 TN
1013 Next Level 16-1 1986 7-1 88% 16 PR
1014 Tri-State Elite 13-White 1986 40-21 66% 13 KY
1015 WPVC 12-Armour black 1986 54-22 71% 12 FL
1016 Shockwave 16-Black 1986 28-18 61% 16 KS
1017 SPVB 18 Elite 1986 16-13 55% 18 IL
1018 Dead Frog 15-Black 1986 34-19 64% 15 MI
1019 L2 17-1 1986 33-32 51% 17 MI
1020 Stars 14-Bb 1986 58-10 85% 14 SC
1021 EXCEL 15-National red 1986 28-28 49% 15 TX
1022 FH 12-Ikaika-marcus 1986 42-11 79% 12 TX
1023 Jupiter Elite 15-E 1986 40-30 57% 15 FL
1024 HJV 18 ELITE 1985 27-19 59% 18 TX
1025 ATOMIC 14-Smack premier 1985 53-29 65% 14 AZ
1026 BSVBC 13-Black 1985 34-14 71% 13 IL
1027 COA 12-Scorpions 1985 37-17 69% 12 IN
1028 SPVB 16-C-fed 1985 34-23 60% 16 IL
1029 LAV 14-National black 1985 55-16 77% 14 AL
1030 A5 17-Acevedo 1984 28-7 80% 17 GA
1031 Jammers 14-Kalepa 1984 46-13 78% 14 HI
1032 Peak VA 15-Black 1984 45-14 71% 15 TX
1033 NVA 14-Premier willie 1983 57-17 77% 14 FL
1034 Dallas Skyline 18-Black 1983 45-17 71% 18 TX
1035 TAV 17-Blue 1983 38-19 64% 17 TX
1036 Balboa Bay Volleyball Club 16-Blue 1983 42-19 69% 16 CA
1037 Iowa Select 17-Mizuno 1982 43-26 61% 17 IA
1038 GVA 15-Pink 1982 26-9 74% 15 PR
1039 AZ SKY 13-Gold 1982 50-34 60% 13 AZ
1040 Ignite 16-Nationals 1982 16-7 70% 16 UT
1041 BORINQUEN COQUI 14-1f 1982 19-10 66% 14 PR
1042 LAV 17-National black 1981 40-20 67% 17 AL
1043 ATHENA VB 18-1 gold national 1981 31-24 56% 18 OR
1044 Level Up 14-1 1981 46-10 82% 14 OH
1045 NT 13-Windermere 1981 72-12 86% 13 FL
1046 Club V 15-Prodigy steph 1981 23-24 49% 15 UT
1047 TI Elite 15.1 1981 50-22 69% 15 IN
1048 Metro Volleyball Club 15-National 1980 46-25 64% 15 DC
1049 MN Select 16-2 1980 53-25 68% 16 MN
1050 CSVC 14-Black 1980 53-17 76% 14 NC
← 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.