Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 3 · 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
101 NPJ 18 Forefront 2310 66-6 92% 18
102 OT 16-T jp 2306 51-21 71% 16 FL
103 PVA 16 ELITE 2305 38-25 60% 16 MO
104 DYNASTY 17-Black 2303 50-17 75% 17 KS
105 Munciana 16 Nighthawks 2303 60-22 73% 16 IN
106 Tstreet 15-Chandler 2303 43-23 65% 15 CA
107 Madfrog 12-N green 2302 63-2 97% 12 TX
108 Kairos 16 Alpha 2298 43-24 64% 16 SD
109 Academy 16 Diamond 2293 61-20 75% 16 NC
110 PineappleHP 16U 2292 41-29 59% 16 IN
111 PineappleHP 14U 2292 41-28 59% 14 IN
112 A5 14 MoBetty 2292 76-14 84% 14 GA
113 KIVA 12-Red 2292 70-5 93% 12 KY
114 COAST 14-1 said 2289 35-18 66% 14 CA
115 TAV 13-Black jon 2289 41-16 72% 13 TX
116 Elevation 15-Edie dani 2289 7-2 78% 15 CO
117 Tri-State Elite 16-Blue 2287 52-19 73% 16 OH
118 Triangle 17-Black 2284 48-20 71% 17 NC
119 TAV 16-Black josh 2284 47-24 66% 16 TX
120 MADFROG 17-N green 2283 51-17 75% 17 TX
121 Vision 15-Gold 2283 56-23 71% 15 CA
122 PineappleHP 17U 2281 53-18 75% 17 IN
123 OMNI 16 National 2281 63-30 68% 16 CA
124 A5 18 Marc 2280 55-11 83% 18 GA
125 MKE Sting 17-Gold 2279 52-26 67% 17 WI
126 Triangle 15-Black 2277 49-25 66% 15 NC
127 A5 16-Stephen 2277 70-17 80% 16 GA
128 Tribe 17-Vktry cardinal 2273 58-18 76% 17 FL
129 1st Alliance 15 Gold 2273 38-25 60% 15 IL
130 Tri-State Elite 17-Blue 2271 53-17 76% 17 OH
131 UNION 16-Black 2270 64-22 74% 16 CA
132 Club V 16-Prodigy reed 2269 61-31 66% 16 UT
133 NYC VBA 17-Westside 2269 88-13 87% 17 NY
134 HPSTL 17 Royal 2268 41-27 59% 17 MO
135 Northern Lights 17-1 2268 57-27 68% 17 MN
136 Tstreet 17-Hayden 2266 39-18 68% 17 CA
137 MAVS 16-Elite 2264 33-21 61% 16 KS
138 WPVC 14-Armour black 2264 60-32 65% 14 FL
139 KC Power 14-1 2264 34-18 65% 14 KS
140 Academy 17-O tsunami 2262 51-27 65% 17 IN
141 CoJrs 15-Shannon 2259 41-17 71% 15 CO
142 NLVA 15-Girouard 2259 45-25 64% 15 MO
143 KC Power 16-1 2258 37-26 59% 16 KS
144 HJV 14-Elite 2258 48-26 65% 14 TX
145 Stars 16 ZAmy 2257 67-21 76% 16 SC
146 VCNebraska 17 Elite 2257 44-16 73% 17 NE
147 MiElite 16-Mizuno 2257 47-24 66% 16 MI
148 TPV 16-Maverick 2255 63-14 82% 16
149 FaR Out 17-J 2254 13-6 68% 17 MI
150 Absolute 17-Black 2253 55-16 77% 17 CA
← Previous123456Next →

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.