Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 40 · 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
1951 Elite Alliance 16-1 1874 22-11 67% 16 SD
1952 Premier Nebraska 15-Red 1874 31-20 61% 15 NE
1953 Summit 15-Blue elite 1874 26-31 46% 15 IN
1954 DN 15-Black 1874 18-8 62% 15 TX
1955 Apex 14-Bobby 1873 28-5 78% 14 UT
1956 NLVC 17-National 1873 39-14 74% 17 TX
1957 NORCO 14-Black 1873 40-18 69% 14 CO
1958 EVA 15-Blue 1873 41-18 69% 15 KY
1959 APV 16-National black 1873 47-19 70% 16 TX
1960 FaR Out 14-Gold 1873 32-15 68% 14 MI
1961 Texas Tornados 18-Adidas 1873 23-9 72% 18 TX
1962 Corpus Christi Storm 16-1 1873 52-13 79% 16 TX
1963 MKE Sting 18-Black 1873 33-25 57% 18 WI
1964 MVA 18-Chino 1873 24-18 57% 18 FL
1965 NPJ Portland 16 National 1873 48-37 56% 16 OR
1966 GCVC 14 Silver 1873 36-31 54% 14 OH
1967 Prime 14-Adidas o 1873 24-24 50% 14 CA
1968 Gulfside 14-Prime 1873 54-20 73% 14 FL
1969 MVSA 13-Wahoo! 1872 55-23 70% 13 MD
1970 COAST 14-3 sydney 1872 41-11 79% 14 CA
1971 Apex NW 18-Summit 1872 28-17 62% 18 WA
1972 SWMNVB 14-1 1872 31-8 79% 14 MN
1973 HPRIME 16-Gold 1872 40-23 63% 16 TX
1974 Mill City Volleyball Club 17 1872 36-17 68% 17 MA
1975 Fusion 14-Blue 1872 41-9 82% 14 PA
1976 FC Elite 15-White 1872 44-14 76% 15 WI
1977 AVA 16-Elite 1872 35-12 74% 16 NY
1978 Bonneville Volleyballl Club 15-Kiley 1872 16-13 55% 15 ID
1979 TLVC Waves 14-1 1872 40-13 75% 14 NC
1980 I AM VBC 16-Red 1871 48-33 59% 16 WI
1981 Brooklyn Elite Volleyball 16-Empire 1871 41-26 61% 16 NY
1982 FeVA 14 1871 43-23 65% 14 WA
1983 Monon 16-1o pegasus 1871 43-45 49% 16 IN
1984 AVA TX 15-Adidas 1871 26-20 57% 15 TX
1985 Illini Elite 17-Black 1871 36-16 69% 17 IL
1986 MVP 60450 16U Black 1871 31-4 89% 16 IL
1987 Mabel-Canton Jrs. 14 Mabel-Canton Jrs. 1871 24-2 92% 14 MN
1988 NorthEast Volleyball Club 13-1 1871 37-19 66% 13 CT
1989 MemphisVBAcademy 14-Red 1871 51-17 75% 14 MS
1990 NRG 15-Ampd white 1871 43-12 75% 15 TX
1991 Yorktowne VB 14-Blue 1871 55-20 73% 14 PA
1992 407 15-Blue 1871 51-26 66% 15 FL
1993 MJVA 17-Elite black 1871 36-22 62% 17 TN
1994 Mindset Premier 17-Red 1870 36-13 73% 17 IL
1995 GP 10 National 1870 65-6 92% 10 FL
1996 HPRIME 13-Gold 1870 40-14 74% 13 TX
1997 NIVA 17-WHITE 1870 43-11 80% 17 IN
1998 Legacy 16-2 adidas 1870 28-40 41% 16 MI
1999 Victorium 14 UA 1870 36-34 51% 14 AZ
2000 ARIZONA STORM 17-Lightning 1869 39-40 49% 17 AZ
← 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.