College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 4 · 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
151 Tennessee Tech U 1547 10-6 63% all TN
152 U Tulsa A 1546 8-4 67% all
153 Cornell U A 1546 9-7 56% all NY
154 Cal Poly SLO B 1546 16-15 52% all CA
155 Illinois St A 1544 11-15 41% all IL
156 UM-Duluth B 1544 8-3 73% all MN
157 Western Michigan A 1544 11-7 61% all MI
158 NJIT B 1544 3-0 100% all NJ
159 Colby College A 1544 11-6 65% all ME
160 Iowa St A 1544 13-10 57% all IA
161 Carleton C 1543 23-12 66% all MN
162 Syracuse U B 1543 14-9 61% all NY
163 U Kentucky A 1542 16-9 64% all KY
164 UA Birmingham A 1541 13-6 68% all AL
165 Drexel U 1541 9-4 69% all PA
166 Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst B 1538 7-4 64% all NY
167 U Washington B 1537 25-18 58% all WA
168 Elon U 1537 16-13 48% all NC
169 Cal Poly Humboldt A 1537 5-2 71% all CA
170 U San Francisco A 1536 4-4 50% all CA
171 Texas St U B 1536 10-6 63% all TX
172 Providence (RI) A 1536 11-7 61% all RI
173 Drexel U B 1535 6-3 67% all PA
174 S New Hampshire U 1535 11-6 65% all NH
175 U Michigan B 1535 9-6 60% all MI
176 CSU-Monterey Bay A 1535 4-3 57% all CA
177 U Arizona B 1534 27-24 53% all AZ
178 U Kansas A 1533 15-9 63% all KS
179 Florida Intl U B 1533 11-12 48% all FL
180 Colorado Coll A 1532 5-2 71% all CO
181 U Utah A 1532 8-5 62% all UT
182 Army A 1531 10-10 50% all NY
183 Point Loma A 1530 16-16 50% all CA
184 U Central Florida B 1530 6-5 55% all FL
185 CSU-Sacramento A 1530 19-18 51% all CA
186 Loyola U-Chicago A 1530 10-9 53% all IL
187 Loyola U-Chicago B 1529 6-10 38% all IL
188 Boise St U 1529 26-19 58% all ID
189 Princeton U 1528 3-2 60% all
190 UC-Berkeley A 1528 20-18 53% all CA
191 Worcester Poly Inst A 1528 9-8 53% all MA
192 U Buffalo-B A 1526 4-2 67% all NY
193 Johns Hopkins A 1526 11-8 58% all MD
194 U San Diego A 1526 26-24 52% all CA
195 U Nevada-Reno A 1525 11-13 46% all NV
196 U British Columbia B 1525 4-2 67% all BC
197 S IllinoisEd A 1524 13-13 50% all IL
198 U Colorado-CS A 1523 14-12 54% all CO
199 UTSA B 1523 9-7 56% all TX
200 UTSA A 1522 13-11 54% all TX
← Previous1234567Next →

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.