College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 10 · 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
451 Ithaca C 1435 2-7 22% all NY
452 Biola U 1435 4-7 36% all CA
453 Duke U A 1435 10-13 43% all NC
454 UC-San Diego B 1435 19-35 35% all CA
455 Utah State U B 1434 9-16 36% all UT
456 U South Florida B 1432 3-8 27% all FL
457 Colorado Mesa U B 1431 3-7 30% all CO
458 Fairfield U 1431 10-14 42% all CT
459 Southern Methodist A 1429 8-13 38% all TX
460 Mercer U 1429 0-4 0% all GA
461 U New Mexico A 1429 5-9 36% all NM
462 U N Colorado A 1429 8-13 38% all CO
463 Niagara U 1426 0-5 0% all NY
464 U Northern Iowa A 1426 6-10 38% all IA
465 Loyola U Maryland A 1425 3-8 27% all MD
466 Amherst College A 1425 4-9 31% all MA
467 Central Washington U B 1423 1-7 13% all WA
468 U Rochester A 1423 3-8 27% all NY
469 Sonoma State U 1423 6-15 29% all CA
470 U New Orleans A 1422 12-17 41% all LA
471 Hofstra U 1422 1-6 14% all NY
472 Davidson A 1422 0-5 0% all NC
473 Colorado Mesa U 1422 7-15 32% all CO
474 Penn St U-Harrisburg B 1421 0-6 0% all PA
475 St Josephs U 1421 2-7 22% all PA
476 Va Commonwealth U B 1420 3-10 23% all VA
477 Missouri State U B 1420 3-10 23% all MO
478 U Houston A 1418 12-16 43% all TX
479 Sam Houston St U 1417 11-15 42% all TX
480 U New Haven A 1417 6-12 33% all CT
481 Wichita St U 1417 11-13 46% all KS
482 Scranton B 1417 0-6 0% all PA
483 Stonehill A 1417 2-8 20% all MA
484 Iona U 1416 3-9 25% all NY
485 Ohio Northern U 1416 5-11 31% all OH
486 Oklahoma St U B 1416 4-13 24% all OK
487 Totality A 1416 3-8 27% all CA
488 Purdue U Indy B 1415 0-6 0% all IN
489 Binghamton U 1415 8-13 38% all NY
490 Southern Conn U 1415 4-9 31% all CT
491 Portland State U 1415 7-12 37% all OR
492 TexasAM-Corpus Christi B 1414 3-8 27% all TX
493 Cal Baptist U 1414 3-8 27% all CA
494 LaFayette Co A 1412 2-8 20% all PA
495 U Mississippi A 1412 1-5 17% all MS
496 U Pittsburgh A 1412 5-11 31% all PA
497 St Olaf A 1412 6-14 30% all MN
498 Biola A 1411 6-12 33% all CA
499 U Cincinnati C 1411 4-11 27% all OH
500 U Montana A 1411 5-13 28% all MT
← Previous12345678910111213Next →

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.