Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 24 · 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
1151 Rockwood Thunder 16-Navy 1962 43-26 62% 16 MO
1152 Kokoro Volleyball 15-1 1961 39-38 51% 15 MN
1153 CSVC 14-Black 1961 53-17 76% 14 NC
1154 COA 17-Surge 1961 62-13 83% 17 IN
1155 EXCEL 11-N red 1961 26-5 84% 11 TX
1156 SynergyForce 17-1 natl 1960 36-31 54% 17 CA
1157 Core STL 16-Navy 1960 46-16 74% 16 MO
1158 VCNebraska 14-Black 1960 15-10 60% 14 NE
1159 Miami Hype 13-Power 1960 10-3 77% 13 FL
1160 CPA 12 Dreves 1959 37-1 97% 12 WA
1161 Ascent 17-Black 1959 24-12 67% 17 AZ
1162 MiElite 15 Mizuno 1959 33-38 46% 15 MI
1163 PEAK 17-1 elite 1959 26-11 70% 17 AZ
1164 UVA 18 Matt 1959 53-16 77% 18 VA
1165 Iowa United 14-1 elite 1959 47-25 65% 14 IA
1166 LVVC LV 13-Avoli 1959 9-0 100% 13
1167 IVBA 14 REN 1958 43-15 74% 14 MS
1168 BRUSA 16 Fiapo 1958 37-28 57% 16 CA
1169 Premier Nebraska 15-Black 1958 36-22 62% 15 NE
1170 OK Charge 16-Ua tulsa 1958 41-23 64% 16 OK
1171 Juggernaut 14-National1 1958 49-26 65% 14 CO
1172 Surfside 14-Pv elite 1958 38-12 76% 14 CA
1173 Tsunami 16-1e marko 1958 40-20 67% 16 GA
1174 River City Jrs 18 Navy 1957 37-6 86% 18 NE
1175 Elevate Athletics 16-Nike isa 1957 18-6 75% 16 UT
1176 TeamLVC 16-Black 1957 44-21 68% 16 NY
1177 VCN 14-Elite 1957 4-4 50% 14 NE
1178 FIELDHOUSE VBC 12-Ikaika marcus 1957 7-2 78% 12
1179 Alabama Perf 17-N red 1957 28-31 47% 17 AL
1180 Athlete HQ 14-Gasper 1956 37-32 54% 14 OH
1181 DME Elite 18-1 1956 44-19 70% 18 FL
1182 Madtown 15-2 national 1956 41-24 63% 15 WI
1183 WVBA 17-Adidas 1956 49-19 72% 17 WA
1184 TAV 13-Black bill 1956 38-22 62% 13 TX
1185 EVA 14-Blue 1956 54-4 93% 14 KY
1186 SF Elite 16-Symone 1956 35-27 56% 16 CA
1187 Blue Royals 16-Emerald 1955 54-16 77% 16 WA
1188 Big Sky 14-1 1955 59-22 71% 14 MT
1189 Aspire NW 12-1 beaverton 1955 39-7 85% 12 WA
1190 Aspire NW 17-1 empire 1955 28-20 58% 17 WA
1191 1st Alliance 17-White 1955 36-17 68% 17 IL
1192 KIVA 14-Black 1955 59-24 71% 14 KY
1193 MemphisVBAcademy 15-Red 1954 35-18 66% 15 MS
1194 ATHENA VB 16-1 gold national 1954 27-40 40% 16 OR
1195 DYNASTY 12-Blue 1954 47-18 72% 12 KS
1196 VA Juniors 16-Elite 1954 44-34 56% 16 VA
1197 Premier 18 Onitsuka 1954 51-22 70% 18 OH
1198 RockCity 12 N1 1954 55-10 85% 12 OH
1199 TKVBC 16-Mavericks elite 1954 62-26 70% 16 GA
1200 Sunshine 13 Westside 1954 29-26 53% 13 CA
← 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.