College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 11 · 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
501 UW-Stevens Point A 1399 8-14 36% all WI
502 Central Washington U B 1397 1-7 13% all WA
503 Penn West U-Clarion A 1397 0-7 0% all PA
504 Hobart William Smith A 1397 1-8 11% all NY
505 Northwestern A 1395 2-10 17% all IL
506 U Richmond A 1395 1-8 11% all VA
507 St Louis U B 1395 10-14 42% all MO
508 NW Nazarene U 1394 0-7 0% all ID
509 Western Oregon U 1394 2-10 17% all OR
510 Penn St U-Harrisburg B 1394 0-6 0% all PA
511 Scranton B 1393 0-6 0% all PA
512 Western Carolina U 1390 2-10 15% all NC
513 U North Carolina-Charlotte A 1390 4-12 24% all NC
514 Va Commonwealth U B 1389 3-10 23% all VA
515 UT-Arlington B 1388 12-15 44% all TX
516 Lewis U 1386 2-10 17% all IL
517 U Maine A 1386 2-11 15% all ME
518 The Citadel A 1385 0-7 0% all SC
519 Embry Riddle U 1385 0-8 0% all FL
520 Colorado Christian U 1384 9-21 30% all CO
521 Brandeis U 1384 4-16 20% all MA
522 Purdue U Indy B 1384 0-6 0% all IN
523 Indiana St U A 1384 3-10 23% all IN
524 U Houston B 1381 11-15 42% all TX
525 U South Florida B 1380 8-12 40% all FL
526 Colorado Mesa U B 1380 5-11 31% all CO
527 High Point B 1378 0-7 0% all NC
528 LutherC A 1378 4-14 22% all IA
529 U Findlay A 1378 3-11 21% all OH
530 Missouri State U B 1378 3-10 23% all MO
531 Utah State U B 1377 9-16 36% all UT
532 Johnson Wales U 1376 2-11 15% all RI
533 High Point A 1375 11-19 35% all NC
534 U Maryland-Balt Co B 1373 0-8 0% all MD
535 Assumption A 1372 2-12 14% all MA
536 U Montana A 1371 5-13 28% all MT
537 Grand Valley St U B 1370 11-14 44% all MI
538 U Nevada-Reno B 1369 3-12 20% all NV
539 U N Colorado B 1369 0-7 0% all CO
540 Oklahoma St U B 1368 4-13 24% all OK
541 UC-San Diego B 1368 15-28 35% all CA
542 U Nebraska-Omaha A 1368 0-9 0% all NE
543 US Coast Guard A 1367 0-9 0% all CT
544 UC-Santa Barbara C 1366 4-12 25% all CA
545 U Mass-Lowell A 1364 0-13 0% all MA
546 C William & Mary A 1364 2-17 11% all VA
547 Eastern Washington U A 1362 4-13 24% all WA
548 Lawrence U 1362 5-14 26% all WI
549 U Detroit Mercy A 1362 2-12 14% all MI
550 Rhode Island Coll A 1361 2-11 15% all RI
← Previous1234567891011121314Next →

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.