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 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
51 Indiana U 1678 14-16 47% all IN
52 U Mass-Amherst A 1677 18-7 72% all MA
53 U Oklahoma A 1677 18-11 62% all OK
54 U North Carolina-Chapel Hill A 1675 14-5 74% all NC
55 U Texas A 1673 19-10 66% all TX
56 U Tennessee A 1672 12-10 55% all TN
57 UC-Santa Barbara B 1671 33-11 75% all CA
58 Millersville U 1669 12-0 100% all PA
59 MSU-Mankato A 1668 19-5 79% all MN
60 Santa Clara U 1668 19-13 59% all CA
61 Eureka A 1666 24-4 86% all IL
62 Old Dominion U 1664 16-1 84% all VA
63 Parker U 1660 17-12 59% all TX
64 San Jose State U A 1660 16-13 55% all CA
65 UL-Lafayette A 1659 18-3 82% all LA
66 UC-Riverside A 1657 28-20 58% all CA
67 North Carolina St U 1654 16-10 62% all NC
68 UW-LaCrosse B 1652 20-4 83% all WI
69 Syracuse U A 1647 13-7 65% all NY
70 George Wash U 1645 13-6 68% all DC
71 Springfield College A 1644 14-1 93% all MA
72 Virginia Tech U B 1644 24-8 75% all VA
73 Montana St U 1643 18-11 62% all MT
74 U Minnesota B 1643 24-6 80% all MN
75 Penn St U-Harrisburg A 1638 15-6 71% all PA
76 SUNY-Oswego A 1636 17-4 81% all NY
77 North Dakota St U A 1632 23-8 74% all ND
78 U Alabama A 1632 15-9 63% all AL
79 U Kentucky A 1631 16-9 64% all KY
80 Colorado St U 1631 15-7 68% all CO
81 U Minnesota A 1629 10-12 45% all MN
82 West Chester B 1629 12-0 100% all PA
83 Louisville A 1628 21-16 57% all KY
84 Bentley U 1628 24-12 67% all MA
85 Va Commonwealth U A 1628 12-10 55% all VA
86 UC-Berkeley A 1627 20-18 53% all CA
87 Georgia State U 1626 17-7 68% all GA
88 Iowa St A 1625 13-10 57% all IA
89 CSU-Sacramento A 1623 19-18 51% all CA
90 Villanova U 1623 15-6 71% all PA
91 Tiffin U A 1622 12-3 80% all OH
92 UW-Milwaukee A 1620 14-7 67% all WI
93 Xavier A 1620 16-9 64% all OH
94 UC-Santa Barbara A 1618 21-16 57% all CA
95 U Illinois B 1617 24-7 77% all IL
96 U Nebraska A 1616 13-6 68% all NE
97 UW-Whitewater A 1615 23-7 77% all WI
98 Western Michigan A 1615 11-7 61% all MI
99 Loyola U-Chicago A 1614 10-9 53% all IL
100 Illinois St A 1613 11-15 41% all IL
← 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.