College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 12 · 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
551 LutherC A 1381 4-14 22% all IA
552 U Nevada-Reno B 1377 3-12 20% all NV
553 Milwaukee SOE B 1377 3-13 19% all WI
554 U Findlay A 1376 3-11 21% all OH
555 Xavier B 1374 1-14 7% all OH
556 Johnson Wales U 1374 2-11 15% all RI
557 U Idaho B 1372 0-9 0% all ID
558 Assumption A 1372 2-12 14% all MA
559 UC-Santa Barbara C 1371 4-16 20% all CA
560 UC-Riverside B 1371 20-37 35% all CA
561 Lawrence U 1371 5-14 26% all KS
562 Winona St U B 1370 3-15 17% all MN
563 US Coast Guard A 1369 0-9 0% all CT
564 Central Michigan B 1368 3-13 19% all MI
565 U Nebraska-Omaha A 1367 0-9 0% all NE
566 UW-Oshkosh B 1365 1-12 8% all WI
567 CSU-Fullerton A 1364 22-35 39% all CA
568 Eastern Washington U A 1362 4-13 24% all WA
569 U Denver B 1360 2-13 13% all CO
570 U Detroit Mercy A 1360 2-12 14% all MI
571 High Point B 1356 10-25 26% all NC
572 Oklahoma St U 1354 7-16 30% all OK
573 Northwestern U 1353 6-18 25% all IL
574 UW-Stout B 1351 2-15 12% all WI
575 Northern Illinois U 1351 5-13 26% all IL
576 CSU-Sacramento B 1350 7-22 24% all CA
577 Augustana C 1350 8-19 30% all IL
578 Rider U A 1348 0-10 0% all NJ
579 Fort Lewis Co A 1348 3-12 20% all CO
580 W Connecticut St U 1347 1-12 8% all CT
581 E Michigan U 1343 3-11 21% all MI
582 Kansas St U 1342 5-13 28% all KS
583 Cal Poly Maritime A 1342 0-11 0% all CA
584 CSU-Fresno A 1342 6-21 22% all CA
585 U La Verne A 1341 0-11 0% all CA
586 Metro State Denver U B 1337 0-13 0% all CO
587 Ball State U 1337 7-16 30% all IN
588 Northeastern U Oakland A 1336 0-12 0% all CA
589 U Laverne A 1331 0-11 0% all CA
590 Wright St A 1331 4-18 18% all OH
591 U Washington C 1325 1-16 6% all WA
592 MaryvilleU-SL A 1318 0-13 0% all MO
593 Central Michigan A 1316 5-13 28% all MI
594 N Arizona U 1310 6-32 16% all AZ
595 Southeast MO St A 1309 2-17 11% all MO
596 Louisville B 1308 0-16 0% all KY
597 St EdwardsU A 1306 5-19 21% all TX
598 DePaul U A 1305 4-17 19% all IL
599 UNLV B 1296 10-38 21% all NV
600 U Mass-Lowell A 1282 0-13 0% all MA
← Previous123456789101112131415Next →

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.