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 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
351 SUNY-Geneseo A 1472 1-3 25% all NY
352 UW-Green Bay A 1472 8-10 44% all WI
353 Western Illinois A 1472 4-6 36% all IL
354 Rochester Inst B 1472 4-5 44% all NY
355 U St Thomas B 1471 10-8 56% all MN
356 Bowdoin A 1471 8-9 47% all ME
357 Montclair State A 1471 2-4 33% all NJ
358 U New Mexico A 1470 5-9 36% all NM
359 Milwaukee SOE A 1470 7-8 47% all WI
360 St Bonaventure U 1470 1-3 25% all NY
361 Carroll U 1469 13-17 43% all WI
362 South Dakota St U 1469 16-17 48% all SD
363 NJIT A 1469 6-8 43% all NJ
364 U Denver A 1468 8-15 35% all CO
365 U Utah B 1468 6-8 43% all UT
366 Washington St U B 1468 10-8 56% all WA
367 Bloomsburg A U 1467 2-4 33% all PA
368 Texas A&M- San Antonio A 1467 2-4 33% all TX
369 CSU-Stanislaus A 1466 19-17 53% all CA
370 U Iowa B 1466 13-11 54% all IA
371 Portland State U 1466 7-12 37% all OR
372 UW-Eau Claire B 1465 3-4 43% all WI
373 Bucknell U 1465 1-3 25% all PA
374 Penn West U-Cal A 1464 2-5 29% all PA
375 Southern Conn U 1464 4-9 31% all CT
376 Canisius Co A 1464 9-9 50% all NY
377 UC-Davis B 1463 15-15 50% all CA
378 Wayne State U 1463 5-9 36% all MI
379 U Colorado-CS B 1461 2-4 33% all CO
380 C of New Jersey B 1461 0-2 0% all NJ
381 Northwestern U 1461 6-18 25% all IL
382 Rice B 1461 7-9 44% all TX
383 Rowan U B 1461 3-5 38% all NJ
384 Drake U 1460 9-15 38% all IA
385 U Alabama Huntsville A 1460 9-9 47% all AL
386 Ohio St U C 1460 13-13 50% all OH
387 St Peters U 1460 5-8 38% all NJ
388 CSU-San Marcos A 1458 19-27 41% all CA
389 Bloomsburg U B 1457 2-4 33% all PA
390 Clemson U B 1457 9-9 50% all SC
391 Montana St U B 1456 9-8 53% all MT
392 Northern Illinois U 1456 5-13 26% all IL
393 U Mississippi A 1456 1-5 17% all MS
394 Longwood U 1454 2-4 33% all
395 U North Dakota A 1453 13-15 46% all ND
396 Portland Comm C 1453 7-11 39% all OR
397 Penn St-Berks A 1452 0-3 0% all PA
398 U Georgia B 1452 8-12 40% all GA
399 SUNY-Brockport A 1452 5-7 42% all NY
400 Howard U 1451 0-3 0% all
← 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.