College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 3 · 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
101 Sacred Heart U 1610 18-7 72% all CT
102 U Florida B 1609 21-6 78% all FL
103 Ohio St U B 1609 22-7 76% all OH
104 Cornell U A 1609 9-7 56% all NY
105 U Kansas A 1608 15-9 63% all KS
106 Auburn U 1606 14-11 56% all AL
107 Boise St U 1606 26-19 58% all ID
108 U Connecticut B 1605 22-5 81% all CT
109 UC Santa Cruz A 1605 9-4 69% all CA
110 UTSA A 1604 13-11 54% all TX
111 U Cincinnati A 1604 14-12 54% all OH
112 U Vermont A 1602 12-11 52% all VT
113 Colorado Sch Mines A 1601 20-9 69% all CO
114 Lipscomb U 1601 12-6 67% all TN
115 Slippery Rock U 1599 13-4 76% all PA
116 Ohio U 1599 12-11 52% all OH
117 Wash U-STL A 1598 16-12 57% all MO
118 Vanderbilt U 1598 13-3 81% all TN
119 Cal Poly Pomona A 1597 16-10 62% all CA
120 Penn St U B 1597 18-5 75% all PA
121 East Stroudsburg U 1596 11-2 85% all PA
122 U Victoria A 1596 9-5 64% all BC
123 U Illinois-Chicago A 1594 12-11 52% all IL
124 Arizona St U 1593 16-20 44% all AZ
125 James Madison A 1589 13-10 57% all VA
126 Johns Hopkins A 1589 11-8 58% all MD
127 UM-Duluth A 1588 23-12 66% all MN
128 Air Force A 1588 11-5 69% all CO
129 U Nevada-Reno A 1588 11-13 46% all NV
130 C Holy Cross A 1586 10-3 77% all MA
131 U Tampa A 1582 11-5 69% all FL
132 CSU-Long Beach A 1580 32-23 58% all CA
133 U Southern Maine A 1580 18-8 69% all ME
134 UA Birmingham A 1580 13-6 68% all AL
135 Wake Forest U 1578 13-6 68% all NC
136 Marquette U A 1578 9-3 75% all WI
137 UW-Stout A 1577 20-10 67% all WI
138 U Missouri B 1577 18-12 60% all MO
139 George Mason U 1576 8-8 50% all VA
140 Rochester Inst A 1574 9-9 50% all NY
141 S New Hampshire U 1574 11-6 65% all NH
142 Binghamton U B 1572 11-3 79% all NY
143 U Ottawa Canada A 1571 10-10 50% all ON
144 Purdue C 1570 12-3 80% all IN
145 Bryant U 1570 17-9 65% all RI
146 Drexel U 1569 9-4 69% all PA
147 W Virginia U 1568 8-9 47% all WV
148 U Georgia A 1568 11-12 48% all GA
149 St Louis U A 1568 16-11 59% all MO
150 Tulane U 1568 7-5 54% all LA
← Previous123456Next →

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.