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 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
301 Bowling Green St U 1495 7-12 37% all OH
302 Wichita St U 1495 11-13 46% all KS
303 Indiana U PA A 1495 5-5 50% all PA
304 Syracuse U B 1495 14-9 61% all NY
305 Butler A 1495 8-12 40% all IN
306 Savannah College A 1494 1-2 33% all GA
307 U Colorado-Denver A 1494 5-5 50% all CO
308 Coastal Carolina U 1494 9-11 45% all SC
309 Texas Tech U 1493 10-14 42% all TX
310 North Dakota St U B 1492 5-4 56% all ND
311 U Central Missouri A 1492 11-10 52% all MO
312 North Carolina St U B 1491 4-4 50% all NC
313 Bentley U B 1490 7-6 54% all MA
314 U South Carolina B 1489 11-9 55% all SC
315 U Colorado B 1489 18-12 60% all CO
316 Michigan Tech U 1488 8-10 44% all MI
317 Shippensburg U B 1488 5-5 50% all PA
318 U Pittsburgh A 1488 5-11 31% all PA
319 Colorado St U B 1488 11-7 61% all CO
320 Southern Methodist A 1487 8-13 38% all TX
321 Florida Intl U B 1486 11-12 48% all FL
322 Auburn U B 1486 8-5 57% all AL
323 U Arkansas B 1486 9-7 56% all AR
324 W Virginia B 1485 2-2 50% all WV
325 U Washington B 1485 25-18 58% all WA
326 U Arizona B 1484 21-19 53% all AZ
327 Wesleyan U 1483 9-9 50% all CT
328 Wichita St U B 1483 3-3 43% all KS
329 UW-Platteville A 1482 13-15 46% all WI
330 Rice U 1482 12-18 40% all TX
331 U Kansas B 1482 5-5 50% all KS
332 Clarkson U 1481 2-3 40% all NY
333 U North Texas A 1480 7-15 32% all TX
334 U Miami A 1480 4-10 29% all FL
335 Bates C 1480 4-5 44% all ME
336 LeMoyne A 1480 1-2 33% all NY
337 Columbia U 1479 6-10 38% all MD
338 Colorado Sch Mines B 1479 8-7 53% all CO
339 U Mary Hardin-Baylor A 1479 8-9 47% all TX
340 Louisiana Tech U 1479 10-13 43% all LA
341 Bethel U 1478 13-16 45% all MN
342 Claremont C 1478 10-13 43% all CA
343 Winona St U 1477 15-14 52% all MN
344 U Maryland-Balt Co A 1477 9-11 45% all MD
345 U British Columbia A 1477 1-5 17% all BC
346 James Madison B 1476 12-10 55% all VA
347 Loyola U-Chicago B 1475 12-11 52% all IL
348 Loyola Marymount A 1474 30-23 57% all CA
349 Harvard U 1474 4-9 31% all MA
350 Rochester Inst B 1472 4-5 44% all NY
← 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.