College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season · Ranked by Elo rating

Rankings last updated:

The VolleyLens College Club Men's Volleyball Rankings track hundreds of men's college club volleyball teams nationwide using an Elo rating system updated after every match. Data is aggregated from NCVF tournaments, conference play, and national qualifiers. The current #1 ranked team is Utah Valley A with a 1817 Elo rating and 61-9 record. Rankings reflect the 2025-2026 season.

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 men's 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 men's volleyball rankings.
#TeamEloRecordWin%AgeState
1 Utah Valley A 1817 61-9 87% all UT
2 Virginia Tech U 1812 35-7 83% all VA
3 Cal Poly SLO A 1808 31-7 82% all CA
4 Ohio St U 1786 20-11 65% all OH
5 San Diego St A 1785 46-20 70% all CA
6 UW-Madison B 1776 30-3 91% all WI
7 U Washington A 1774 38-6 86% all WA
8 Davenport U 1774 27-2 93% all MI
9 San Diego St U B 1754 52-18 74% all CA
10 UW-Madison A 1749 25-6 81% all WI
11 UC-Los Angeles A 1740 35-13 73% all CA
12 UC-Santa Barbara B 1740 44-12 79% all CA
13 U Maryland A 1738 18-4 82% all MD
14 Carnegie Mellon U 1730 25-3 86% all PA
15 Michigan St A 1725 26-6 81% all MI
16 Utah Valley B 1710 32-14 70% all UT
17 SUNY-Cortland A 1710 19-1 95% all NY
18 UW-LaCrosse A 1698 23-3 88% all WI
19 Purdue A 1697 18-7 72% all IN
20 Brown U 1692 21-6 78% all RI
21 CSU-Chico A 1691 19-10 66% all CA
22 U South Carolina A 1687 16-4 73% all SC
23 U St Thomas A 1687 24-6 80% all MN
24 CSU-Northridge A 1686 36-17 68% all CA
25 Western New England U 1680 17-0 100% all MA
26 UW-LaCrosse B 1680 20-4 83% all WI
27 UC-San Diego A 1679 38-22 63% all CA
28 Virginia Tech U B 1679 24-8 75% all VA
29 Utah State U A 1678 27-8 77% all UT
30 Creighton U 1675 18-5 78% all NE
31 UC-Davis A 1675 27-9 75% all CA
32 Baylor U A 1673 20-10 67% all TX
33 Eureka A 1672 24-4 86% all IL
34 Millersville U 1670 12-0 100% all PA
35 U Minnesota B 1669 24-6 80% all MN
36 U Florida A 1667 18-6 75% all FL
37 MSU-Mankato A 1667 19-5 79% all MN
38 Northeastern U 1662 31-11 74% all MA
39 U Missouri A 1662 23-5 82% all MO
40 Louisiana St U 1660 23-8 74% all LA
41 U Illinois B 1659 24-7 77% all IL
42 UC-Irvine A 1658 42-17 71% all CA
43 Oregon St U A 1655 26-8 76% all OR
44 Ohio St U B 1651 22-7 76% all OH
45 Penn St U 1650 17-6 74% all PA
46 Old Dominion U 1650 16-1 84% all VA
47 U Illinois A 1649 16-12 57% all IL
48 U Oregon A 1648 28-9 76% all OR
49 U Florida B 1646 21-6 78% all FL
50 Springfield College A 1644 14-1 93% all MA
1234Next →

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.