Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 41 · 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
2001 Aspire 15 Premier 1869 50-24 68% 15 AZ
2002 Red Rock 13-Steph 1869 42-24 64% 13 CA
2003 ECJVC 15-National 1869 39-27 59% 15 NC
2004 Pohaku 17-1 1869 20-32 38% 17 KS
2005 Lockdown VBC 17-Phoenix 1868 52-25 68% 17 MA
2006 LEVBC 16-National 1868 49-25 65% 16 MD
2007 Miami Wave 16-Aqua 1868 56-29 66% 16 FL
2008 SoCal VBC 14-Beacons 1868 26-21 55% 14 CA
2009 CUVC 13 Open 1868 32-33 49% 13 NC
2010 SMASH 17-S 1867 18-12 60% 17 MA
2011 Aces Hawaii 17 1867 22-8 73% 17 HI
2012 OT 11-O omi 1867 55-9 86% 11 FL
2013 Tsunami 13-1e kristine 1867 48-17 74% 13 GA
2014 Cape Coast 16 TITAN 1867 26-34 43% 16 FL
2015 SA Magic 12 ELITE 1867 47-21 68% 12 TX
2016 TX STORM 13-Smack 1867 35-16 67% 13 TX
2017 MVSA 16 Sparks 1867 63-23 73% 16 MD
2018 Aces Hawaii 16 1867 25-17 60% 16 HI
2019 A5 Chattanooga 17-1 1867 23-13 64% 17 GA
2020 Lockdown VBC 14-Mockingjays 1867 39-15 72% 14 MA
2021 Rev 15-2 jaguars 1867 52-17 75% 15 IN
2022 Austin Skyline 15 Royal 1867 31-32 49% 15 TX
2023 CVH SELECT 17-1 1867 19-18 51% 17 PR
2024 DN 14-Red 1867 16-11 53% 14 TX
2025 SCVC 15-Darice 1866 4-4 50% 15 NV
2026 OT 12-O cristobal 1866 40-23 63% 12 FL
2027 FW Fire 13-Purple 1866 40-10 78% 13 TX
2028 Idaho ONE 12-White 1866 31-11 74% 12 ID
2029 Club One AZ 16-Titanium 1866 50-38 57% 16 AZ
2030 Sky High 15-Black 1866 44-41 51% 15 IL
2031 KNVBC 17 Showtime 1866 30-19 61% 17 KS
2032 Banzai VBC 18-Select 1866 30-9 77% 18 NE
2033 MVA 17-National (EV) 1866 25-9 74% 17 MT
2034 DN 16-Red 1865 15-4 79% 16 TX
2035 NorthShore 14 Crocs 1865 40-15 73% 14 MI
2036 Tri-State Elite 12-Blue 1865 24-22 52% 12 KY
2037 ENCORE 16-Navy 1865 42-34 55% 16 CA
2038 Club South 15-1 1865 39-11 78% 15 TX
2039 Spa City 16 Aqua 1865 46-22 68% 16 NY
2040 RVA WEST 14-Navy 1865 68-30 69% 14 WI
2041 573 14-Premier a 1865 22-3 88% 14 MO
2042 2026 Nola Katherine/Bob 13-S 1865 102-37 72% 13 LA
2043 United 15 National 1865 44-15 75% 15 AL
2044 CMASS EDGE 13-Blue 1864 39-17 70% 13 MA
2045 USJVA 15-National red hp 1864 30-9 77% 15 AL
2046 Wildfire 15-N open 1864 8-27 23% 15 FL
2047 JAG VBC 15-1 national 1864 72-15 83% 15 WI
2048 Tampa North 12-Black 1864 46-13 78% 12 FL
2049 SG Elite 16 Excel 1864 53-16 77% 16 CA
2050 BORINQUEN COQUI 16-1f 1864 19-8 70% 16 PR
← 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.