Youth Club Girls Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 6 · 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
251 KC Power 18-1 2190 31-12 72% 18 KS
252 Areté 14-Navy telos 2190 50-14 78% 14 TX
253 PEAK 13-1 elite 2190 42-16 72% 13 AZ
254 VVA 16-Rosen 2190 55-19 74% 16 CA
255 AZ Sky 15 Gold 2188 60-26 70% 15 AZ
256 FaR Out 16-Black 2188 39-29 57% 16 MI
257 NKYVC 15-1 tsunami 2187 44-33 57% 15 KY
258 SPVB 17-Elite 2187 15-7 68% 17 IL
259 AZ REV 14 Premier 2187 49-35 58% 14 AZ
260 KC Power 13-1 2186 39-26 60% 13 KS
261 MADFROG 15-N black 2186 56-17 77% 15 TX
262 Premier Nebraska 18 Gold 2186 28-4 88% 18 NE
263 Madfrog 15-N white 2186 52-7 85% 15 TX
264 Elevation 13-Molly 2185 34-19 64% 13 OH
265 South County 15-Darice 2184 53-15 78% 15 RI
266 OK Charge 17-Ua 2183 33-25 57% 17 OK
267 SG Elite 16 Roshambo 2183 45-23 66% 16 CA
268 A5 17 AG 2183 41-19 68% 17 GA
269 AJV 17-Adidas 2181 46-23 67% 17 TX
270 Panda 13-1 2181 64-16 80% 13 CA
271 1st Alliance 16-Silver 2180 51-16 76% 16 IL
272 Mintonette Sports 14-1 2180 40-33 55% 14 OH
273 SC Elite 15-Blue-jake 2179 57-17 77% 15 SC
274 IMGA Ascender Elite 18-1 2179 46-12 79% 18 FL
275 HPSTL 12 Royal 2178 66-12 85% 12 MO
276 NKYVC 18-1 tsunami 2176 34-15 69% 18 KY
277 CVC 15-Black 2176 39-33 54% 15 OH
278 Miami Hype 17-Prime1 2176 47-26 64% 17 FL
279 EXCEL 11-Red 2176 15-1 94% 11 TX
280 Stars 17 ALex 2175 57-21 73% 17 SC
281 Wildfire 13-N lee ann 2175 52-29 64% 13 FL
282 OPU 15-1 2174 62-14 82% 15 FL
283 OPU 14-1 2174 61-19 76% 14 FL
284 FaR Out 18-Black 2173 37-9 80% 18 MI
285 Arete 16-Navy telos 2173 43-24 64% 16 TX
286 Monon 14-1o nova 2172 57-27 68% 14 IN
287 Premier Nebraska 17 Gold 2172 41-19 68% 17 NE
288 EXCEL 12-National red 2171 54-13 81% 12 TX
289 Dal Skyline 17-Royal-sean 2171 41-24 62% 17 TX
290 COAST 16-1 nilay 2171 37-30 55% 16 CA
291 MKE Sting 18 Gold 2171 31-20 61% 18 WI
292 Paramount VBC 14 Jaz 2169 44-20 69% 14 VA
293 AVC CLE 15-Red 2169 50-21 70% 15 OH
294 Boiler Jrs 13-O gold 2168 57-26 69% 13 IN
295 OK Charge 15-Ua 2167 41-7 85% 15 OK
296 FC Elite 16 Elite 2167 39-26 60% 16 WI
297 Pohaku 18-1 2167 34-18 65% 18 KS
298 Paramount VBC 15 Nick 2167 55-29 65% 15 VA
299 Alamo 14-Premier 2167 55-32 63% 14 TX
300 MPV 17-National green 2167 80-17 82% 17 UT
← Previous123456789Next →

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.