College Club Men's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 9 · 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
401 Texas A&M B 1451 8-12 40% all TX
402 Central Washington U 1450 14-16 47% all WA
403 St Johns UMN A 1449 13-15 46% all MN
404 Concordia College A 1449 4-6 40% all MN
405 Grand Canyon U B 1449 7-7 50% all AZ
406 U South Dakota A 1448 3-6 33% all SD
407 Michigan Tech U B 1448 4-6 40% all MI
408 Stockton U B 1448 1-4 20% all NJ
409 Oregon St U C 1447 11-15 42% all OR
410 Oklahoma St U 1447 7-16 30% all OK
411 U Southern Mississippi A 1446 0-5 0% all MS
412 Florida State U B 1446 8-9 47% all FL
413 UW-River Falls A 1446 8-16 33% all WI
414 Siena C 1445 6-9 40% all NY
415 Ball State U 1444 7-16 30% all IN
416 Robert Morris U 1442 2-6 25% all PA
417 American U B 1442 1-5 17% all DC
418 American U 1441 6-13 32% all DC
419 CSU-Fullerton A 1441 16-30 35% all CA
420 Kansas St U B 1441 7-8 47% all KS
421 George Fox U 1441 2-6 25% all OR
422 Northern Michigan U 1440 2-6 25% all MI
423 N Arizona U 1440 5-20 20% all AZ
424 Scranton A 1440 1-5 17% all PA
425 Michigan St C 1440 10-12 45% all MI
426 UW-Oshkosh A 1439 21-23 48% all WI
427 Georgia Tech B 1438 6-9 40% all GA
428 TAMUGalv A 1438 7-11 39% all TX
429 Long Island U 1437 1-7 13% all NY
430 Biola U 1437 4-7 36% all CA
431 U Maine B 1437 3-6 33% all ME
432 CSU-Fresno A 1436 6-21 22% all CA
433 U Florida C 1436 9-11 45% all FL
434 E Carolina A 1436 1-7 13% all NC
435 Benedictine Coll A 1436 0-4 0% all KS
436 Biola A 1435 2-6 25% all CA
437 Ohio U B 1435 7-8 44% all OH
438 U Dayton B 1435 12-12 50% all OH
439 AndersonUSC A 1435 7-12 37% all SC
440 Ithaca C 1435 2-7 22% all NY
441 CSU-Northridge B 1434 22-24 48% all CA
442 UNC-Wilmington B 1434 7-9 44% all NC
443 U New Orleans A 1434 12-17 41% all LA
444 Mercer U 1433 0-4 0% all GA
445 Portland Comm C B 1433 1-7 13% all OR
446 Oregon St U B 1432 15-15 50% all OR
447 Millersville U B 1431 0-4 0% all PA
448 Kansas St U 1431 5-13 28% all KS
449 Fordham U 1431 8-12 40% all NY
450 Fairfield U 1430 10-14 42% all CT
← Previous123456789101112Next →

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.