May 17, 2026

We wrap our 2026 Open qualifier rankings with the 14s division. The factors taken into consideration are 1) percent chance of qualifying; 2) number of eventual qualifiers; 3) percentage of teams eventually qualified from the field; 4) number of nationally-ranked teams; 5) percentage of nationally-ranked teams in the field; and 6) average ranking of those teams. Those spots are then added up and divided by six to get an average ranking, with the goal being to get the lowest ranking, thus indicating the qualifier ranked highly in most every category. It’s hardly an exact science. There are some obvious flaws with the way the averages are generated. For example, coming up with the chance of qualifying is done from subtracting the number of teams already having a bid from the number of teams in the field and then using the number of bids available and dividing that by the number of teams without a bid. This, of course, doesn’t take into account the odds of trickle down and get into the nitty-gritty of that, or whether it’s harder to qualify when no qualified teams are in the field versus when a bunch are in the field. The rankings are also biased and influenced heavily based on our own national rankings. Which the latest release from the month of May is used and not the rankings at the actual time of each qualifier. At the same time, I do feel the number of eventual Open qualifiers and the percentage of that in terms of the overall field is relevant and a strong reflector of just how difficult a qualifier was or wasn’t. The lower the percentage, the less difficult a qualifier was, as compared to a qualifier that may have 50 percent or more of the field eventual qualify. I also feel there is a lot to be taken from the overall rankings and that even though the system is far from perfect it is fairly reflective of the strength of each individual qualifier. Generally speaking, the rankings more times than not match up with the “eye test” if you will. Here are some takeaways from this year’s breakdown. Sunshine and Boston were on the same weekend and the first qualifiers of the season. There was a stark difference between the two. Sunshine ranked as the toughest qualifier in 2026, with a 3.2 average. Boston, in its first season as a qualifier, came in ninth with a 7.5 average. Sunshine tied for fourth place a season ago with an average of 5. With its average jumping nearly two points this season, it was a clear winner this year. The Mideast Qualifier took top honors last year with an average of 4.2. This year, the average actually was better, at 4, but was only good enough for second place. Windy City, at 4.8, and Salt Lake Showdown, at 5, came in third and fourth place respectively. What’s impressive about Windy City being third is the 14s division was also competing that same weekend at Big South, Lone Star and Red Rock. Even with four qualifiers on the same weekend, Windy City clearly drew one of the most competitive fields as teams were not split up as much as one would have thought. Salt Lake was the last qualifier of the season, and teams did not shy away and made it one of the stronger events of the season. Far Western took a noticeable jump forward this spring. A year ago Far Western finished 11th with a 9.3 average. This season? Far Western tied for fifth with Show Me with a 6.2 average. You can view the full rankings and breakdown below. Final Rankings 1. Sunshine (Avg 3.2) 2. Mideast (4) 3. Windy City (4.8) 4. Salt Lake Showdown (5) T5th. Show Me (6.2) T5th. Far Western (6.2) 7. Northeast (6.3) 8. Lone Star Classic (7.3) 9. Boston (7.5) 10. Northern Lights (8.5) 11. Red Rock Rave (9) 12. Pacific Northwest (9.3) 13. Big South (10.5) *** 1. SUNSHINE CLASSIC (Avg 3.2) 2025 ranking: 4, Avg 5 Number of Teams: 24 Bids Available: 3 Number of Previously-Qualified Teams: 0 Percent Chance of Qualifying: 12.5 (6th) Number of Eventual Open Qualifiers: 15 (T2nd) Percent Eventually Qualified from Field: 62.5 (T2nd) Number of Ranked Teams from Vballrecruiter Top 50: 16 (T1st) Percent of Ranked Teams in Field: 66.7 (1st) Average of Ranked Teams: 25.1 (7th) *** 2. MIDEAST (Avg 4) 2025 ranking: 1, Avg 4.2 Number of Teams: 40 Bids Available: 3 Number of Previously-Qualified Teams: 2 Percent Chance of Qualifying: 7.9 (2nd) Number of Eventual Open Qualifiers: 16 (1st) Percent Eventually Qualified from Field: 40 (T9th) Number of Ranked Teams from Vballrecruiter Top 50: 16 (T1st) Percent of Ranked Teams in Field: 40 (T9th) Average of Ranked Teams: 17.8 (2nd) *** 3. WINDY CITY (Avg 4.8) 2025 ranking: T4th, Avg 5 Number of Teams: 20 Bids Available: 2 Number of Previously-Qualified Teams: 3 Percent Chance of Qualifying: 11.8 (3rd) Number of Eventual Open Qualifiers: 11 (T5th) Percent Eventually Qualified from Field: 55 (T5th) Number of Ranked Teams from Vballrecruiter Top 50: 10 (7th) Percent of Ranked Teams in Field: 50 (T6th) Average of Ranked Teams: 21.7 (3rd) *** 4. SALT LAKE SHOWDOWN (Avg 5) 2025 ranking: T8th, Avg 6.8 Number of Teams: 24 Bids Available: 3 Number of Previously-Qualified Teams: 6 Percent Chance of Qualifying: 16.7 (T11th) Number of Eventual Open Qualifiers: 15 (T2nd) Percent Eventually Qualified from Field: 62.5 (T2nd) Number of Ranked Teams from Vballrecruiter Top 50: 14 (T3rd) Percent of Ranked Teams in Field: 58.3 (T4th) Average of Ranked Teams: 26.1 (8th) *** T5. SHOW ME (Avg 6.2) 2025 ranking: 2nd, Avg 4.3 Number of Teams: 24 Bids Available: 3 Number of Previously-Qualified Teams: 6 Percent Chance of Qualifying: 16.7 (T11th) Number of Eventual Open Qualifiers: 14 (4th) Percent Eventually Qualified from Field: 58.3 (4th) Number of Ranked Teams from Vballrecruiter Top 50: 14 (T3rd) Percent of Ranked Teams in Field: 58.3 (T4th) Average of Ranked Teams: 27.8 (11th) ***