2025-2026 Season — Page 6 · 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.
| # | Team | Elo | Record | Win% | Age | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 251 | Penn St-Berks B | 1501 | 1-1 | 50% | all | PA |
| 252 | Christopher Newport U | 1501 | 2-2 | 50% | all | VA |
| 253 | U Kansas B | 1501 | 5-5 | 50% | all | KS |
| 254 | Carleton U | 1501 | 6-6 | 50% | all | MN |
| 255 | U Iowa B | 1501 | 8-8 | 50% | all | IA |
| 256 | Kent St U | 1500 | 0-0 | 0% | all | OH |
| 257 | Yale U | 1500 | 12-13 | 48% | all | CT |
| 258 | U Oklahoma C | 1500 | 3-3 | 50% | all | OK |
| 259 | C of New Jersey A | 1500 | 7-6 | 54% | all | NJ |
| 260 | Clarion U | 1500 | 0-0 | 0% | all | PA |
| 261 | Mississippi St U | 1500 | 0-0 | 0% | all | MS |
| 262 | Wichita St U B | 1499 | 3-3 | 43% | all | KS |
| 263 | North Carolina St U B | 1499 | 4-4 | 50% | all | NC |
| 264 | Towson U | 1499 | 2-2 | 50% | all | MD |
| 265 | U Virginia B | 1499 | 2-2 | 50% | all | VA |
| 266 | W Virginia U | 1498 | 8-9 | 47% | all | WV |
| 267 | Shippensburg U | 1497 | 5-5 | 50% | all | PA |
| 268 | Oberlin College A | 1497 | 1-1 | 50% | all | OH |
| 269 | Penn St-Behrend A | 1497 | 3-3 | 50% | all | PA |
| 270 | Texas A&M B | 1497 | 8-12 | 40% | all | TX |
| 271 | U Central Missouri A | 1496 | 11-10 | 52% | all | MO |
| 272 | Case Western Reserve U | 1496 | 9-10 | 47% | all | OH |
| 273 | Oakland U | 1496 | 10-6 | 63% | all | MI |
| 274 | U Colorado-Denver A | 1496 | 5-5 | 50% | all | CO |
| 275 | Rochester Inst B | 1495 | 4-5 | 44% | all | NY |
| 276 | Simon Frasier U | 1495 | 7-7 | 50% | all | BC |
| 277 | W Virginia B | 1495 | 2-2 | 50% | all | WV |
| 278 | U Colorado B | 1494 | 12-10 | 55% | all | CO |
| 279 | U New England A | 1494 | 8-9 | 47% | all | ME |
| 280 | Butler A | 1494 | 8-12 | 40% | all | IN |
| 281 | U Utah B | 1494 | 6-8 | 43% | all | UT |
| 282 | Indiana U PA A | 1494 | 5-5 | 50% | all | PA |
| 283 | Coastal Carolina U | 1494 | 9-11 | 45% | all | SC |
| 284 | Rice B | 1493 | 7-9 | 44% | all | TX |
| 285 | Loyola Marymount A | 1492 | 40-24 | 63% | all | CA |
| 286 | U South Florida A | 1492 | 10-8 | 56% | all | FL |
| 287 | Clemson U B | 1491 | 5-6 | 45% | all | SC |
| 288 | Michigan Tech U | 1491 | 8-10 | 44% | all | MI |
| 289 | Purdue U Indy A | 1491 | 7-6 | 54% | all | IN |
| 290 | Montana St U B | 1491 | 9-8 | 53% | all | MT |
| 291 | West Texas A&M A | 1490 | 5-5 | 50% | all | TX |
| 292 | U South Carolina B | 1490 | 6-8 | 43% | all | SC |
| 293 | Marquette U B | 1489 | 11-12 | 48% | all | WI |
| 294 | Cedarville U | 1489 | 11-13 | 46% | all | OH |
| 295 | Oregon St U B | 1489 | 15-15 | 50% | all | OR |
| 296 | Michigan St C | 1489 | 10-12 | 45% | all | MI |
| 297 | Florida State U | 1489 | 8-11 | 42% | all | FL |
| 298 | U Dayton B | 1488 | 12-12 | 50% | all | OH |
| 299 | U Albany A | 1487 | 2-2 | 50% | all | NY |
| 300 | U Georgia A | 1487 | 11-12 | 48% | all | GA |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.