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 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
551 Champlain College A 1356 2-11 15% all VT
552 U Cincinnati C 1356 4-11 27% all OH
553 Bowdoin B 1353 0-9 0% all ME
554 Augustana C 1351 8-19 30% all IL
555 U Minnesota Morris B 1349 0-9 0% all MN
556 Fort Lewis Co A 1348 3-12 20% all CO
557 Rider U A 1348 0-10 0% all NJ
558 U Cincinnati B 1347 7-15 32% all OH
559 W Connecticut St U 1345 1-12 8% all CT
560 U La Verne A 1339 0-11 0% all CA
561 Wright St A 1333 4-18 18% all OH
562 Milwaukee SOE B 1328 3-13 19% all WI
563 S IllinoisEd B 1324 5-15 25% all IL
564 MaryvilleU-SL A 1319 0-13 0% all MO
565 UW-Oshkosh B 1319 1-12 8% all WI
566 Winona St U B 1317 3-15 17% all MN
567 U Denver B 1310 2-13 13% all CO
568 CSU-Long Beach B 1309 15-36 29% all CA
569 Southeast MO St A 1308 2-17 11% all MO
570 UC-Riverside B 1307 14-31 31% all CA
571 CSU-Sacramento B 1307 7-22 24% all CA
572 Central Michigan B 1306 3-13 19% all MI
573 St EdwardsU A 1305 5-19 21% all TX
574 Western Michigan B 1302 6-19 24% all MI
575 Xavier B 1301 4-18 18% all OH
576 UW-Stout B 1296 2-15 12% all WI
577 Metro State Denver U B 1292 0-13 0% all CO
578 CSU-Channel Islands A 1289 1-16 6% all CA
579 Metro State Denver U A 1276 5-22 19% all CO
580 U Minnesota Morris A 1273 0-18 0% all MN
581 U Washington C 1273 1-16 6% all WA
582 Azusa Pacific A 1273 1-18 5% all CA
583 MSU-Moorhead A 1270 2-23 8% all MN
584 Gustavus Adolphus A 1254 3-22 12% all MN
585 UNLV B 1227 10-38 21% all NV
586 CSU-Fullerton B 1218 8-33 20% all CA
587 NON NCVF Team A 1217 11-39 21% all TX
588 U Southern Cal B 1187 3-27 10% all CA
589 Louisville B 1161 0-22 0% all KY
← Previous1234567891011121314

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.