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 1879 Elo rating and 48-9 record. Rankings reflect the 2025-2026 season.

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 U N Colorado A 1429 8-13 38% all CO
452 Villanova U B 1429 2-6 25% all PA
453 Seattle U A 1428 6-10 38% all WA
454 U Northern Iowa A 1428 6-10 38% all IA
455 C William & Mary B 1427 2-6 25% all VA
456 Colorado Mesa U 1426 7-15 32% all CO
457 Niagara U 1426 0-5 0% all NY
458 Coastal Carolina U B 1425 0-4 0% all SC
459 E Michigan U 1425 3-11 21% all MI
460 Hofstra U 1425 1-6 14% all NY
461 U Nebraska B 1425 9-10 47% all NE
462 Illinois St B 1424 9-10 47% all IL
463 Loyola U Maryland A 1424 3-8 27% all MD
464 UTSA B 1424 12-12 50% all TX
465 Sonoma State U 1424 6-15 29% all
466 SUNY-Cortland B 1423 2-7 22% all NY
467 U Rochester A 1422 3-8 27% all NY
468 U New Haven A 1422 6-12 33% all CT
469 Texas St U B 1420 11-11 50% all TX
470 Louisiana Tech U B 1420 10-16 38% all LA
471 Ohio Northern U 1420 5-11 31% all OH
472 Amherst College A 1420 4-9 31% all MA
473 St Josephs U 1419 2-7 22% all PA
474 Davidson A 1419 0-5 0% all NC
475 Central Michigan A 1419 5-13 28% all MI
476 UW-Milwaukee B 1418 7-11 39% all WI
477 Totality A 1417 3-8 27% all
478 U Texas B 1417 9-15 38% all TX
479 Iowa St C 1416 6-10 38% all IA
480 U Kentucky B 1416 11-14 44% all KY
481 Bowling Green St A 1415 2-8 20% all OH
482 Stonehill A 1415 2-8 20% all MA
483 Appalachian St U B 1414 6-9 40% all NC
484 Iona U 1414 3-9 25% all NY
485 Central Connecticut St U 1414 9-18 33% all CT
486 Fordham U B 1413 1-6 14% all NY
487 St Olaf A 1413 6-14 30% all MN
488 LaFayette Co A 1411 2-8 20% all PA
489 Morehouse A 1411 1-7 13% all GA
490 DePaul U A 1411 4-17 19% all IL
491 Gonzaga U B 1410 3-7 30% all WA
492 Williams C 1410 4-12 25% all MA
493 Arizona St U B 1409 19-25 43% all AZ
494 U Notre Dame B 1409 7-11 37% all IN
495 UMass-Dartmouth A 1407 2-7 22% all MA
496 Georgetown U 1403 4-10 29% all DC
497 Ferris State U 1401 3-10 23% all MI
498 Marquette U B 1401 13-19 41% all WI
499 NYIT A 1400 1-8 11% all NY
500 Quinnipiac U 1400 5-15 25% all CT
← 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.