College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 2 · 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
51 Georgia Tech A 1644 20-7 74% all GA
52 Grand Canyon U 1643 20-15 57% all AZ
53 U Iowa A 1638 15-9 63% all IA
54 Penn St U-Harrisburg A 1637 15-6 71% all PA
55 Texas A&M A 1637 14-8 64% all TX
56 UL-Lafayette A 1637 18-3 82% all LA
57 Penn St U B 1636 18-5 75% all PA
58 West Chester B 1633 12-0 100% all PA
59 SUNY-Oswego A 1631 17-4 81% all NY
60 U Connecticut B 1631 22-5 81% all CT
61 North Dakota St U A 1630 23-8 74% all ND
62 U Notre Dame A 1627 15-7 68% all IN
63 U North Carolina-Chapel Hill A 1626 14-5 74% all NC
64 Marquette U 1626 14-8 64% all WI
65 Indiana U B 1622 22-10 69% all IN
66 Villanova U 1622 15-6 71% all PA
67 Clemson U 1621 16-9 64% all SC
68 Rutgers-New Brnwk A 1618 11-9 55% all NJ
69 U Virginia A 1617 19-9 68% all VA
70 Bentley U 1616 24-12 67% all MA
71 UW-Whitewater A 1616 23-7 77% all WI
72 Boston U 1615 19-8 70% all MA
73 Tiffin U A 1613 12-3 80% all OH
74 Xavier A 1611 16-9 64% all OH
75 Sacred Heart U 1609 18-7 72% all CT
76 Parker U 1606 17-12 59% all TX
77 U Missouri B 1605 18-12 60% all MO
78 U Tennessee A 1604 12-10 55% all TN
79 U Mass-Amherst A 1604 18-7 72% all MA
80 Colorado Sch Mines A 1603 20-9 69% all CO
81 UC-Irvine B 1600 49-19 72% all CA
82 Liberty U 1598 20-11 65% all VA
83 Lipscomb U 1598 12-6 67% all TN
84 East Stroudsburg U 1598 11-2 85% all PA
85 Slippery Rock U 1598 13-4 76% all PA
86 U Maryland B 1595 18-9 67% all MD
87 Vanderbilt U 1595 13-3 81% all TN
88 U Alabama B 1595 13-6 68% all AL
89 Purdue C 1595 12-3 80% all IN
90 Wash U-STL A 1594 16-12 57% all MO
91 Cal Poly Pomona A 1592 24-13 65% all CA
92 Air Force A 1588 11-5 69% all CO
93 U St Thomas B 1588 9-2 82% all MN
94 San Jose State U A 1588 16-13 55% all CA
95 Indiana U 1588 14-16 47% all IN
96 C Holy Cross A 1587 10-3 77% all MA
97 Binghamton U B 1586 11-3 79% all NY
98 U Texas A 1586 19-10 66% all TX
99 U Oklahoma A 1586 18-11 62% all OK
100 George Wash U 1585 13-6 68% all DC
← Previous12345Next →

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.