Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 211 · 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
10501 ALJRS 12 National 1614 18-9 67% 12
10502 CVC 11-2 pearson 1614 14-6 70% 11
10503 Furder 14 Gigi 1614 23-11 68% 14
10504 W.Tucson 14-Blue 1614 5-3 63% 14
10505 LES 14 Charlotte 1614 29-18 60% 14
10506 FCVBC 18-Ron 1614 20-9 69% 18
10507 Titans Khaos 17 1614 1-6 14% 17
10508 Club Monarch 18-1 1614 4-1 80% 18 TX
10509 STVA 14-Navy-1 1614 34-27 56% 14 TX
10510 Sunshine 14-South bay 1614 28-24 54% 14 CA
10511 VOLT 13-2 1614 38-27 58% 13 ND
10512 WD Nation 17-White 1614 22-20 52% 17 LA
10513 865VB 15-Elite 1614 23-9 72% 15 TN
10514 Kairos 12-White 1614 15-8 65% 12 SD
10515 RVA Girls 14 1614 44-17 72% 14 MD
10516 SA Elite 15-American 1614 23-23 50% 15 TX
10517 EU 15-Black 1614 26-31 46% 15 IN
10518 Dead Frog 17-Green 1614 28-14 67% 17 MI
10519 MKE Sting 11 Gold 1614 31-27 53% 11 WI
10520 Allegiance 12-White 1614 9-4 47% 12 TX
10521 Roots 15-2 blue 1614 33-26 56% 15 TX
10522 Legacy 11-Elite east 1614 31-13 70% 11 MI
10523 SA Elite 16-American 1614 20-25 44% 16 TX
10524 SMV 15-1 1614 12-5 71% 15 MN
10525 C1VB 13 Select 1614 26-12 68% 13 SC
10526 Maui Encore 16-S 1614 11-5 69% 16 HI
10527 BORINQUEN COQUI 12-2f 1614 11-12 48% 12 PR
10528 Sartell 17-1 1614 21-8 66% 17 MN
10529 CUVC 16-N2 1614 30-16 65% 16 NC
10530 ENCORE 13-Navy derek 1614 29-29 50% 13 CA
10531 SA Spartans 16-Alpha 1614 22-18 54% 16 TX
10532 Attack VBC 18-Mizuno lime 1614 15-14 52% 18 TX
10533 Colorado Springs Alt CSA 16-Navy 1614 15-15 50% 16 CO
10534 Momentum Volleyball 13-Brock 1614 26-12 68% 13 CO
10535 IGNITE 13-Black 1614 20-9 69% 13 OH
10536 CWAVE Venere 11 1614 9-5 64% 11 OH
10537 FLIGHT 14-Select gibbs 1614 12-4 75% 14 MI
10538 Adrenaline 18 Jeff 1614 16-14 53% 18 IA
10539 LAVA North 12-Molten 1614 27-14 66% 12 CA
10540 Red Rock 15-Jason - san francisco 1614 25-23 52% 15 CA
10541 Set'em Up 14 1614 3-1 75% 14 FL
10542 EAA 16 1614 19-9 68% 16 MN
10543 G-Force 14-Black 1614 8-1 80% 14 WI
10544 Wisconsin Elite 15-White 1614 28-10 74% 15 WI
10545 Black Swamp 13-2 1614 12-4 75% 13 OH
10546 Sky High 13-Van gerven 1614 14-5 74% 13 IL
10547 Delta Juniors 13-2 1614 3-0 100% 13
10548 Mizuno Northern Lights 13-2 1614 4-1 80% 13
10549 Midwest Momentum Volleyball 18-1 1614 11-2 79% 18
10550 HCS 16-Mamba 1614 6-2 75% 16
← 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.