Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 22 · 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
1051 SG Elite 18-Roshambo 1980 34-19 64% 18 CA
1052 Elevation 18 Peak 1980 27-14 66% 18 CO
1053 Northern Lights 14-B 1979 12-2 86% 14 MN
1054 Madfrog 18-N black sears 1979 35-20 64% 18 TX
1055 Epic United 16 Elite 1979 46-18 72% 16 IL
1056 Premier Nebraska 15-Black 1979 36-22 62% 15 NE
1057 NKYVC 12-1 tsunami 1978 29-15 66% 12 KY
1058 KIVA 17-White 1978 48-26 65% 17 KY
1059 Big Sky 15-1 1978 33-20 59% 15 MT
1060 FORZA1 NORTH 12-One 1978 33-14 70% 12 CA
1061 Pohaku 13-1 1978 37-19 66% 13 KS
1062 TOVC 15 TOVC 15-E. Garcia 1978 16-7 70% 15 PR
1063 AJV 18 adidas 1978 38-14 73% 18 TX
1064 UEPA 18-D 1978 47-7 85% 18 TX
1065 Roots 16-1 green 1977 41-20 67% 16 TX
1066 417 MoJrs 16 Elite 1977 47-17 73% 16 MO
1067 SF Stars 14 1977 10-1 91% 14 CA
1068 COAST 15-2 colton 1977 41-22 65% 15 CA
1069 Ignite 13-Susie (UT) 1976 15-3 71% 13 UT
1070 NE Elite 14-Koa 1976 30-11 73% 14 NE
1071 1st Alliance 13-1 1976 87-64 58% 13 IL
1072 Rhythm 18 Jeff 1976 30-13 70% 18 TN
1073 VAQUERAS 16-F heyner 1976 31-6 84% 16 PR
1074 SMASH 16 1976 22-13 63% 16 MA
1075 KUIKAHI 18-Wahine rsb 1976 28-11 72% 18 HI
1076 SynergyForce 17-1 natl 1975 36-31 54% 17 CA
1077 Mintonette Sports 18-1 1975 34-28 54% 18 OH
1078 Decatur Force 13 Teal 1975 51-14 78% 13 IN
1079 BRUSA 18-William 1975 31-16 66% 18 CA
1080 Tribe 18-Vktry cardinal 1975 30-23 57% 18 FL
1081 WGVA 16-Black 1975 45-24 65% 16 GA
1082 MADFROG 16-N black cj 1975 42-25 62% 16 TX
1083 TAV 16-Blue (NTR) 1975 12-3 80% 16
1084 Legacy Girls 18-Elite 1974 33-14 70% 18 CA
1085 OMNI 16 Elite 1974 49-31 61% 16 CA
1086 OPVC 14-Hubbell 1974 32-29 52% 14 OH
1087 CANGREJERAS 16-Fs 1974 10-4 71% 16 PR
1088 A5 16-Danielle 1974 70-22 76% 16 GA
1089 OK Charge 12-Ua tulsa 1973 53-5 91% 12 OK
1090 Metro VBC 16-Pink 1973 44-24 65% 16 IN
1091 SPVB 18 Kahl 1973 19-11 63% 18 IL
1092 AZ SKY 18-Blue 1973 46-23 67% 18 AZ
1093 SC Rockstar 13-Moni 1973 35-19 65% 13 CA
1094 DYNASTY 13-Blue 1973 44-16 73% 13 KS
1095 HPSTL 11 Royal 1972 58-12 81% 11 MO
1096 Ultimate G14 Gold 1972 46-20 70% 14 IL
1097 Yorktown 14 1972 31-4 89% 14 IN
1098 BORINQUEN COQUI 13-1f 1972 20-4 83% 13 PR
1099 SF Elite 16-Symone 1972 35-27 56% 16 CA
1100 Coast United 18 1972 37-17 69% 18 SC
← 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.