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 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
1751 Nebraska ONE 13-Thunder 1892 32-13 71% 13 NE
1752 KEVC 17-1 1892 32-20 62% 17 MN
1753 Northern Lights 15-R 1892 63-13 83% 15 MN
1754 CCJ 18-1 1892 49-4 92% 18 LA
1755 Carolina Rogue 18-Black 1892 14-9 61% 18 SC
1756 ARVC 14-Orange 1892 46-9 84% 14 NC
1757 Momentum 16-A 1891 9-0 100% 16 CO
1758 1st Alliance 17-Elite 1891 3-3 50% 17 IL
1759 FW Fire 14-Purple 1891 26-5 84% 14 TX
1760 TLVC Waves 17-1 1891 32-13 71% 17 NC
1761 HOV 16 National 1891 28-13 68% 16 VA
1762 Club V 15-Prodigy drew 1891 35-23 60% 15 UT
1763 Club Idaho 13-Blue 1891 6-1 86% 13 UT
1764 Panda 15-1 1891 38-15 72% 15 CA
1765 KC Power 15-3 1891 37-14 73% 15 KS
1766 VOLT 14-1 1891 49-24 67% 14 ND
1767 CVC 18-Black 1891 32-22 59% 18 OH
1768 Club V 16-Prodigy preston 1891 43-25 63% 16 UT
1769 Arete 14-Navy ethos 1891 38-17 67% 14 TX
1770 MiElite 13 Mizuno 1890 31-34 48% 13 MI
1771 NorStar 17-1 1890 31-25 55% 17 CA
1772 1United 15-N white 1890 39-12 75% 15 TX
1773 Club Legacy 16-Alpha 1890 32-9 78% 16 NE
1774 MOVA 16-M 1890 60-14 81% 16 OH
1775 Texas Tornados 16-Adidas 1890 28-6 82% 16 TX
1776 Rio Grande Elite 18-1 1890 8-3 73% 18 PR
1777 Coast United 14 1889 41-17 71% 14 SC
1778 WF Waves 13-Dannielle 1889 34-11 76% 13 AL
1779 Chicago Elite 17 Elite 1889 41-18 69% 17 IL
1780 MiElite 14-National 1889 37-12 76% 14 MI
1781 SWMNVB 17-1 1889 33-9 79% 17 MN
1782 Iowa Rockets 13 R 1889 47-24 65% 13 IA
1783 MOVSelect 12-Green 1889 39-4 91% 12 OH
1784 Madison 14-Keanu 1889 23-15 61% 14 ID
1785 COAST 14-2 andy 1889 28-15 65% 14 CA
1786 MVVC G 12-Red 1889 37-17 69% 12 CA
1787 HEAT 10-Red 1889 35-8 80% 10 TX
1788 Premier Nebraska 15-Silver 1888 38-9 81% 15 NE
1789 SNVF 14 LIGHTNING 1888 41-18 69% 14 WA
1790 MAVS 11 Elite 1888 37-14 73% 11 KS
1791 Seal Beach 16-Black 1888 38-25 60% 16 CA
1792 AJ 14-Gold 1888 44-8 85% 14 LA
1793 FH 18-Ikaika-andy 1888 34-22 61% 18 TX
1794 Elevate Athletics 18-Nike zach 1888 23-5 82% 18 UT
1795 USA South 15-Premier purple 1888 24-27 47% 15 FL
1796 Premier 13-Black r 1888 29-14 67% 13 TX
1797 K1 Bayamon 14-Moncho 1888 7-1 88% 14 PR
1798 Angelo Rise 16-1 1887 44-10 81% 16 TX
1799 CNVKC Mizuno 16-Mike 1887 36-15 71% 16 MO
1800 CINCY EAST 15-1 black 1887 35-27 56% 15 OH
← 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.