College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

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 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
251 Kennesaw St UB A 1515 2-1 50% all GA
252 Trinity U 1515 15-10 60% all TX
253 Utah Tech U A 1514 15-15 50% all UT
254 Sam Houston St U 1514 11-15 42% all TX
255 Harding U 1513 13-9 59% all AR
256 Cal Poly SLO B 1512 16-15 52% all CA
257 Texas St U A 1511 10-19 34% all TX
258 Kutztown B 1510 2-1 67% all PA
259 U Rhode Island A 1509 7-14 33% all RI
260 U North Georgia A 1509 10-9 50% all GA
261 Duke U A 1508 10-13 43% all NC
262 Utah Valley U B 1508 3-3 50% all UT
263 Appalachian St U 1506 9-12 43% all NC
264 UW-Eau Claire A 1506 17-14 55% all WI
265 Point Loma A 1506 10-11 48% all CA
266 Georgia Southern U 1506 4-5 44% all GA
267 Bridgewater St U 1506 9-8 53% all MA
268 U North Carolina-Chapel Hill B 1506 1-1 25% all NC
269 C of Charleston A 1505 6-5 55% all SC
270 U North Dakota B 1504 5-4 56% all ND
271 Western Washington U 1504 9-10 47% all WA
272 Bradley U 1504 11-9 55% all IL
273 Indiana U A 1504 6-6 50% all IN
274 U New Hampshire A 1503 10-16 38% all NH
275 U Oregon B 1503 23-14 62% all OR
276 U Albany A 1503 2-2 50% all NY
277 C of New Jersey A 1502 7-6 54% all NJ
278 Youngstown St U 1501 3-5 38% all OH
279 U Tennessee B 1501 13-11 54% all TN
280 Christopher Newport U 1501 2-2 50% all VA
281 Shippensburg U 1500 5-5 50% all PA
282 Clarion U 1500 0-0 0% all PA
283 Mississippi St U 1500 0-0 0% all MS
284 Kent St U 1500 0-0 0% all OH
285 U Idaho A 1499 9-8 53% all ID
286 Case Western Reserve U 1499 9-10 47% all OH
287 U Virginia B 1499 2-2 50% all VA
288 Towson U 1499 2-2 50% all MD
289 San Francisco St U 1499 9-13 41% all
290 Utah Valley C 1498 4-3 57% all UT
291 U Oklahoma C 1498 3-3 50% all OK
292 UNLV A 1498 21-28 43% all NV
293 Oberlin College A 1497 1-1 50% all OH
294 Penn St-Berks B 1497 1-1 50% all PA
295 U New England A 1496 8-9 47% all ME
296 Binghamton U 1496 8-13 38% all NY
297 Dartmouth A 1496 9-11 45% all NH
298 Clark U 1496 7-7 50% all MA
299 Cedarville U 1496 11-13 46% all OH
300 Penn St-Behrend A 1496 3-3 50% all PA
← Previous123456789Next →

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.