College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 7 · 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
301 Roger Williams U 1487 7-8 47% all RI
302 Appalachian St U 1486 9-12 43% all NC
303 Oregon St U C 1485 11-15 42% all OR
304 CSU-Northridge B 1485 28-30 48% all CA
305 Dartmouth A 1484 9-11 45% all NH
306 Claremont C 1484 16-19 46% all CA
307 UW-Eau Claire B 1484 3-4 43% all WI
308 Grand Valley St U 1483 10-10 50% all MI
309 Appalachian St U B 1483 3-5 38% all NC
310 U Ottawa Canada A 1483 10-10 50% all ON
311 Rowan U B 1482 3-5 38% all NJ
312 Bates C 1482 4-5 44% all ME
313 U Pittsburgh B 1482 4-6 40% all PA
314 Louisiana Tech U 1482 10-13 43% all LA
315 Florida Intl U A 1482 8-10 44% all FL
316 Clarkson U 1481 2-3 40% all NY
317 Illinois St B 1481 6-7 46% all IL
318 Boston C 1481 14-12 54% all MA
319 U Portland A 1481 4-5 44% all OR
320 Tufts U 1481 10-12 45% all MA
321 Stephen F Austin St U 1480 6-8 43% all TX
322 LeMoyne A 1480 1-2 33% all NY
323 Kansas St U B 1480 7-8 47% all KS
324 U Mary Hardin-Baylor A 1479 8-9 47% all TX
325 U Buffalo A 1479 6-9 40% all NY
326 U Toledo A 1479 7-6 54% all OH
327 Savannah College A 1478 1-2 33% all GA
328 West Chester A 1478 11-10 52% all PA
329 Ohio U B 1478 7-8 44% all OH
330 Bethel U 1477 13-16 45% all MN
331 U Central Florida A 1477 11-10 52% all FL
332 Winona St U 1476 15-14 52% all MN
333 Georgia Southern U 1475 4-5 44% all GA
334 UW-Green Bay A 1475 8-10 44% all WI
335 U Maryland-Balt Co A 1475 9-11 45% all MD
336 Wesleyan U 1475 9-9 50% all CT
337 Western Illinois A 1475 4-6 36% all IL
338 Bloomsburg U B 1475 2-4 33% all PA
339 U Chicago A 1475 10-11 48% all IL
340 UW-Platteville A 1474 13-15 46% all WI
341 Milwaukee SOE A 1474 7-8 47% all WI
342 U Tennessee B 1473 6-9 40% all TN
343 Concordia College A 1473 4-6 40% all MN
344 Grand Valley St U B 1473 8-9 47% all MI
345 Michigan Tech U B 1472 4-6 40% all MI
346 UNC-Wilmington B 1472 5-5 50% all NC
347 U Nebraska B 1472 9-10 47% all NE
348 Kennesaw St U 1472 11-10 52% all GA
349 SUNY-Geneseo A 1472 1-3 25% all NY
350 Montclair State A 1472 2-4 33% all NJ
← Previous12345678910Next →

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.