College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 5 · 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
201 U Toledo A 1539 7-6 54% all OH
202 Florida Atlantic U 1539 6-9 40% all FL
203 Cal Poly Humboldt A 1539 5-2 71% all
204 U San Francisco A 1538 4-4 50% all
205 Army A 1537 10-10 50% all NY
206 SUNY-Stony Brook A 1536 6-9 40% all NY
207 CSU-Monterey Bay A 1536 4-3 57% all
208 Rowan U 1535 6-8 43% all NJ
209 Colorado Coll A 1535 5-2 71% all CO
210 Worcester Poly Inst A 1534 9-8 53% all MA
211 Purdue U Indy A 1533 7-6 54% all IN
212 Missouri State U 1531 10-11 48% all MO
213 Louisiana St U B 1531 14-11 56% all LA
214 Purdue B 1531 16-8 67% all IN
215 Princeton U 1530 3-2 60% all
216 UM-Duluth B 1530 8-3 73% all MN
217 Simon Frasier U 1529 7-7 50% all BC
218 U Illinois C 1529 17-11 61% all IL
219 MiamiOH U A 1529 9-15 38% all OH
220 UW-Whitewater B 1529 12-7 63% all WI
221 U Colorado-CS A 1528 14-12 54% all CO
222 U North Carolina-Greensboro A 1528 7-14 32% all NC
223 Drexel U B 1527 6-3 67% all PA
224 Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst A 1527 5-8 38% all NY
225 S IllinoisEd A 1526 13-13 50% all IL
226 U Buffalo-B A 1526 4-2 67% all NY
227 Wash U-STL B 1526 11-6 65% all MO
228 Michigan St B 1526 19-13 59% all MI
229 Roger Williams U 1525 7-8 47% all RI
230 Yale U 1525 12-13 48% all CT
231 UC-Irvine B 1524 36-19 65% all CA
232 Liberty U B 1524 11-9 55% all VA
233 U San Diego A 1524 20-19 51% all CA
234 Iowa St B 1524 17-8 68% all IA
235 Texas Tech U B 1523 14-8 64% all TX
236 Indiana U B 1523 23-18 56% all IN
237 UNC-Wilmington A 1523 16-10 62% all NC
238 Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst B 1522 7-4 64% all NY
239 U Central Florida B 1522 11-7 61% all FL
240 Gonzaga U A 1522 12-10 55% all WA
241 Franciscan U 1522 5-3 63% all OH
242 Temple U A 1521 7-10 41% all PA
243 Fitchburg St U 1520 10-8 56% all MA
244 Saginaw Valley St U 1518 8-6 57% all MI
245 Hope Coll A 1517 6-6 50% all MI
246 Oklahoma Baptist U 1517 11-7 61% all OK
247 Kutztown A 1516 4-4 50% all PA
248 U British Columbia B 1516 4-2 67% all BC
249 St Marys CA A 1516 3-3 50% all
250 Trinity U 1515 15-10 60% all TX
← Previous12345678Next →

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.