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 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
501 Harvard U 1410 4-9 31% all MA
502 Morehouse A 1410 1-7 13% all GA
503 Fordham U 1410 8-12 40% all NY
504 U Southern Mississippi A 1410 0-5 0% all MS
505 U Arizona A 1409 19-34 36% all AZ
506 Columbia U 1409 6-10 38% all MD
507 U Miami A 1409 4-10 29% all FL
508 Williams C 1407 4-12 25% all MA
509 Bowling Green St U 1407 7-12 37% all OH
510 Abilene Christian U 1405 1-7 13% all
511 Central Connecticut St U 1404 9-18 33% all CT
512 U Oklahoma B 1403 3-11 21% all OK
513 Texas St U A 1403 10-19 34% all TX
514 Rhode Island Coll A 1401 2-11 15% all RI
515 UW-Stevens Point A 1401 8-14 36% all WI
516 U New Hampshire A 1401 10-16 38% all NH
517 Ferris State U 1400 3-10 23% all MI
518 NYIT A 1399 1-8 11% all NY
519 U N Colorado B 1399 0-7 0% all CO
520 Hobart William Smith A 1398 1-8 11% all NY
521 Wayne State U 1398 5-9 36% all MI
522 U Maryland-Balt Co B 1398 0-8 0% all MD
523 Penn West U-Clarion A 1397 0-7 0% all PA
524 NW Nazarene U 1396 0-7 0% all ID
525 Champlain College A 1396 2-11 15% all VT
526 Georgetown U 1395 4-10 29% all DC
527 U Cincinnati B 1395 4-12 25% all OH
528 Quinnipiac U 1395 5-15 25% all CT
529 Prairie View A&M A 1393 2-9 18% all TX
530 E Carolina A 1392 1-7 13% all NC
531 Western Carolina U 1392 2-10 15% all NC
532 U Richmond A 1392 1-8 11% all VA
533 Western Oregon U 1390 2-10 17% all OR
534 UNLV A 1389 21-28 43% all NV
535 Long Island U 1387 1-7 13% all NY
536 The Citadel A 1387 0-7 0% all SC
537 Texas Tech U 1387 10-14 42% all TX
538 Indiana St U A 1386 3-10 23% all IN
539 U Minnesota Morris B 1386 0-9 0% all MN
540 U Maine A 1385 2-11 15% all ME
541 Western Michigan B 1385 3-15 17% all MI
542 Brandeis U 1385 4-16 20% all MA
543 U North Carolina-Charlotte A 1384 4-12 24% all NC
544 Portland Comm C B 1384 1-7 13% all OR
545 Bowdoin B 1384 0-9 0% all ME
546 Lewis U 1383 2-10 17% all IL
547 Embry Riddle U 1382 0-8 0% all FL
548 Colorado Christian U 1382 9-21 30% all CO
549 U North Texas A 1382 7-15 32% all TX
550 Oklahoma Baptist U B 1382 2-10 17% all OK
← 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.