Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 28 · 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
1351 SMV 15-1 black 1934 65-11 86% 15 MN
1352 Tribe 16-Vktry white 1934 47-38 55% 16 FL
1353 HPSTL 16-Orange 1934 47-30 61% 16 MO
1354 K1 Bayamon 13-9 1934 18-2 90% 13 PR
1355 2026 Nola Dana/Melissa 13-S 1934 42-13 76% 13
1356 KC Power 14-2 1933 32-23 58% 14 KS
1357 Aspire NW 13-1 beaverton 1933 36-21 63% 13 WA
1358 Tsunami 18-1e lane 1933 46-15 75% 18 GA
1359 Triad Elite 18 National 1933 32-17 65% 18 NC
1360 X TEAM 12-Warriors 1933 44-5 90% 12 CA
1361 CVC 12-Black 1933 38-26 59% 12 OH
1362 A5 Chattanooga 16-1 1933 37-26 59% 16 TN
1363 UEPA 17-D 1933 33-14 67% 17 TX
1364 South Central NE 13-Black 1932 29-5 85% 13
1365 TPV 17-Maverick 1932 33-35 49% 17
1366 Austin Skyline 13-Royal 1932 37-19 65% 13 TX
1367 Aspire NW 16-1 vancouver 1932 16-2 89% 16 WA
1368 BORINQUEN COQUI 14-F arcangel 1932 6-2 75% 14 PR
1369 River City Juniors 18-Navy 1932 8-1 89% 18
1370 CCVB 18-1 1932 5-3 63% 18 CA
1371 Austin Skyline 18 Royal 1931 24-15 62% 18 TX
1372 OK Charge 11-Ua 1931 42-8 84% 11 OK
1373 Club Fusion 17-1 national 1931 30-25 55% 17 IL
1374 Academy North 15-National 1931 34-19 64% 15 CA
1375 KIVA 18-Red 1931 31-21 60% 18 KY
1376 Innerlight VC 16 GOLD 1931 49-12 80% 16 TN
1377 1United 16-N white 1931 42-20 66% 16 TX
1378 PSVC 15-Jay 1931 36-19 65% 15 SC
1379 TAV 17-Black haroun 1931 37-31 54% 17 TX
1380 Aces 14-S 1931 31-5 78% 14 TX
1381 Legacy 16-3 adidas 1931 62-22 74% 16 MI
1382 Aspire NW 14-1 vancouver 1931 15-2 88% 14 WA
1383 Blue Ridge 15-Blue 1931 9-8 53% 15 VA
1384 Big Sky 14 Westside 1930 41-13 73% 14 MT
1385 Madtown 15-1 national 1930 27-33 45% 15 WI
1386 Mizuno M1 17-1 1930 50-33 60% 17 MN
1387 NLVC 14-National 1930 42-9 82% 14 NJ
1388 PJVBC 15 National 1930 54-15 78% 15 WA
1389 Tri-State Elite 16-White 1930 38-24 61% 16 OH
1390 1st Alliance 16-Red 1930 41-14 75% 16 IL
1391 Sanford Fargo 15-Ua 1930 45-15 75% 15 ND
1392 DN 15-Red 1930 8-1 89% 15 TX
1393 HEAT 13-Red 1929 51-8 85% 13 WI
1394 Club Cactus 15-Mizuno 1929 42-32 57% 15 AZ
1395 FRVBC 18-1 black 1929 28-14 67% 18 CO
1396 SIVBC 13 Cyclone 1929 47-26 64% 13 WA
1397 Active 14-Red 1929 49-10 83% 14 VA
1398 ADREN 13-1 1929 58-5 92% 13 OH
1399 Next Level 13-1 josue 1929 24-12 67% 13 CA
1400 PSVBA 16-Legacy 1 1929 57-25 70% 16 WA
← 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.