Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 38 · 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
1851 417 MoJrs 18 Elite 1881 23-10 70% 18 MO
1852 NorStar 17-1 1881 31-25 55% 17 CA
1853 Sideout 18-N elvis 1881 34-16 68% 18 NJ
1854 MiElite 14-National 1881 37-12 76% 14 MI
1855 FaR Out 14-Gold 1881 32-15 68% 14 MI
1856 Momentum 16-A 1881 9-0 100% 16 CO
1857 Legacy 11-1 adidas 1881 50-13 79% 11 MI
1858 Club Legacy 16-Alpha 1881 32-9 78% 16 NE
1859 K1 Bayamon 15-David 1881 3-5 38% 15 PR
1860 Munciana Indy 14 Otters 1881 32-33 49% 14 IN
1861 HEAT 10-Red 1880 35-8 80% 10 TX
1862 CNVKC Mizuno 16-Mike 1880 36-15 71% 16 MO
1863 MOVA 16-M 1880 60-14 81% 16 OH
1864 Paramount VBC 12 Jasmine 1880 19-3 86% 12 VA
1865 TLVC Waves 17-1 1880 27-4 87% 17 NC
1866 SNVF 14 LIGHTNING 1880 41-18 69% 14 WA
1867 Ultimate VBC 18-Gold 1880 4-4 50% 18 IL
1868 OPVC 14-Horton 1880 40-24 63% 14 OH
1869 Tstreet SN 15-Jackson 1880 31-13 70% 15 CA
1870 HRVC Hurricanes 15-1 1880 7-6 54% 15 ON
1871 MVVC G 12-Red 1880 37-17 69% 12 CA
1872 Iowa Rockets 15-R 1879 45-27 63% 15 IA
1873 Cape Coast 16 TITAN 1879 26-34 43% 16 FL
1874 Gulfside 14-Prime 1879 54-20 73% 14 FL
1875 Rancho Valley 18 Premier 1879 10-5 67% 18 CA
1876 Pursuit 17-National 1879 39-27 59% 17 MO
1877 Club V 16-Prodigy preston 1879 43-25 63% 16 UT
1878 Elite 17-National cd 1879 40-23 63% 17 FL
1879 EMV 13-National black mcneider 1879 6-2 75% 13 TX
1880 Elite Alliance 16-1 1879 22-11 67% 16 SD
1881 FAV 16 Maverick 1879 23-2 92% 16 CA
1882 Rancho 16 Premier 1879 28-16 64% 16 CA
1883 Chicago Elite 17 Elite 1878 41-18 69% 17 IL
1884 Fusion 18-Blue 1878 35-12 74% 18 PA
1885 MKE Sting 16 Silver 1878 66-21 76% 16 WI
1886 MiElite 18 Elite 1878 29-20 59% 18 MI
1887 MJVA 17-Elite black 1878 36-22 62% 17 TN
1888 OVA 14-Black 1878 64-24 73% 14 FL
1889 Top Select 18 Elite 1878 36-15 71% 18 FL
1890 407 17-Orange 1878 48-40 55% 17 FL
1891 Arete 17-Navy ethos 1878 34-13 71% 17 TX
1892 Junior BIsons 16-Gold 1877 4-5 44% 16
1893 COVC 18 Nationals 1877 22-13 63% 18 OR
1894 MVP 60450 16U Black 1877 31-4 89% 16 IL
1895 NIVA 14-PURPLE 1877 51-27 65% 14 IN
1896 Platform 17-Adidas 1877 52-30 63% 17 IA
1897 SMASH 18-S 1877 15-10 60% 18 MA
1898 AVC CLE 14-Red 1877 25-33 43% 14 OH
1899 Madison 16-Sebastion 1877 13-9 59% 16 CA
1900 SWMNVB 14-1 1876 31-8 79% 14
← 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.