Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 36 · 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
1751 A5 15-Jennie 1892 47-21 69% 15 GA
1752 Big Sky 18-1 1892 8-6 57% 18 MT
1753 ARVC 15-Black 1892 8-2 80% 15 NM
1754 WAVE 16-Nancy 1891 32-28 53% 16 CA
1755 South County 18-Josh/kayli 1891 23-10 70% 18 RI
1756 A5 15-Myca 1891 67-14 83% 15 GA
1757 NRG VBC 15-Ampd navy 1891 44-20 66% 15 TX
1758 Academy 17 Diamond 1891 19-38 33% 17 NC
1759 BVC 16 Casie 1891 46-14 77% 16 CA
1760 HEAT 12-Red 1891 52-15 78% 12 TX
1761 Red Rock 11-Cristine 1891 44-13 77% 11 CA
1762 1st Alliance 17-Elite 1891 3-3 50% 17 IL
1763 SDVBC 16-Lindsey 1891 21-19 53% 16 CA
1764 AZ REV 16 Elite 1890 50-30 63% 16 AZ
1765 BCS Skyline H 18 Royal 1890 29-19 60% 18 TX
1766 Lions 14-Red 1890 31-27 53% 14 IL
1767 St. Pete 18-Teal 1890 49-10 83% 18 FL
1768 Vibe 14-Black 1890 28-21 57% 14 CA
1769 FRVBC 17-Black 1890 17-7 71% 17 CO
1770 Madison 14-Keanu 1890 23-15 61% 14 CA
1771 Club V Cache Valley 15 1890 14-15 48% 15 UT
1772 Actyve 14-Navy 1890 26-24 52% 14 CA
1773 FH 18-Ikaika-andy 1890 34-22 61% 18 TX
1774 SCVB 16 Riley 1890 26-10 72% 16 RI
1775 Iowa Rockets 13 R 1889 47-24 65% 13 IA
1776 CVC 18-Black 1889 32-22 59% 18 OH
1777 HOV 16 National 1889 28-13 68% 16 VA
1778 MARIN 14-Black 1889 46-28 62% 14 CA
1779 TAV 14-Black 1889 66-38 63% 14 IL
1780 Vibe VBC 14-1 1889 10-0 100% 14 CA
1781 Coast United 14 1889 41-17 71% 14 CA
1782 Absolute 13-Black 1889 32-41 44% 13 CA
1783 MAVS 11 Elite 1888 37-14 73% 11 KS
1784 Monon 14-2e blast 1888 54-31 64% 14 IN
1785 SC Rockstar 13-Lacey 1888 31-25 55% 13 CA
1786 Six Pack 18 1888 38-13 75% 18 IA
1787 Jupiter Elite 16-E 1888 18-43 30% 16 FL
1788 Panda 15-1 1888 38-15 72% 15 CA
1789 Nebraska ONE 13-Thunder 1888 32-13 71% 13 NE
1790 HNLV 14-Black 1888 17-9 65% 14
1791 ARIZONA STORM 15-Lightning 1887 45-42 52% 15 AZ
1792 SG Elite 15 Excel 1887 54-15 78% 15 CA
1793 Academy 16-E phoenix 1887 50-31 62% 16 IN
1794 Epic United 15-Elite 1887 35-26 57% 15 IN
1795 COAST 14-2 andy 1887 28-15 65% 14 CA
1796 Northeast 16-2 1887 44-16 73% 16 CT
1797 Premier Nebraska 15-Silver 1887 38-9 81% 15 NE
1798 CINCY EAST 15-1 black 1887 35-27 56% 15 OH
1799 Club Idaho 13-Blue 1887 6-1 86% 13 ID
1800 Bama Elite 16-E spartans 1886 39-16 71% 16 AL
← 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.