College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 8 · 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
351 U Texas B 1471 9-15 38% all TX
352 Florida Atlantic U 1471 6-9 40% all FL
353 C of New Jersey B 1471 0-2 0% all NJ
354 St Bonaventure U 1470 1-3 25% all NY
355 Lehigh U 1470 1-3 25% all PA
356 Stanford U 1470 11-16 41% all CA
357 Arizona St U 1469 18-30 38% all AZ
358 NJIT A 1469 6-8 43% all NJ
359 Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst A 1469 5-8 38% all NY
360 Bowdoin A 1469 8-9 47% all ME
361 Louisville A 1469 11-14 44% all KY
362 Louisiana Tech U B 1469 7-12 37% all LA
363 Carroll U 1469 13-17 43% all WI
364 Georgia Tech B 1468 6-9 40% all GA
365 SUNY-Stony Brook A 1468 6-9 40% all NY
366 Texas A&M- San Antonio A 1467 2-4 33% all TX
367 U Southern Cal A 1467 18-26 41% all CA
368 Youngstown St U 1467 3-5 38% all OH
369 Washington St U 1467 16-14 53% all WA
370 U Florida C 1467 4-8 33% all FL
371 Rowan U 1467 6-8 43% all NJ
372 U Denver A 1466 8-15 35% all CO
373 South Dakota St U 1466 16-17 48% all SD
374 Bloomsburg A U 1466 2-4 33% all PA
375 UT-Arlington A 1466 13-14 48% all TX
376 CSU-Stanislaus A 1466 19-17 53% all CA
377 Baylor U B 1466 7-11 39% all TX
378 Bucknell U 1465 1-3 25% all PA
379 Arizona St U B 1464 24-31 44% all AZ
380 U Delaware A 1464 6-10 38% all DE
381 U Arkansas A 1464 8-12 40% all AR
382 Florida State U B 1464 4-7 36% all FL
383 U Colorado-CS B 1464 2-4 33% all CO
384 Stockton U B 1464 1-4 20% all NJ
385 Penn West U-Cal A 1463 2-5 29% all PA
386 Canisius Co A 1463 9-9 50% all NY
387 U Alabama Huntsville A 1463 9-9 47% all AL
388 Rice U 1463 12-18 40% all TX
389 U Maine B 1462 3-6 33% all ME
390 U Connecticut A 1462 10-10 50% all CT
391 Iowa St C 1462 6-10 38% all IA
392 George Fox U 1461 2-6 25% all OR
393 UC-Santa Barbara A 1460 25-25 50% all CA
394 St Peters U 1460 5-8 38% all NJ
395 St Louis U B 1458 6-10 38% all MO
396 UW-Milwaukee B 1458 7-11 39% all WI
397 CSU-San Marcos A 1457 26-32 45% all CA
398 U Dayton A 1457 12-12 50% all OH
399 Penn U B 1456 1-4 20% all PA
400 U Notre Dame B 1456 7-11 37% all IN
← Previous1234567891011Next →

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.