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 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
401 Longwood U 1456 2-4 33% all NC
402 Western Washington U B 1455 0-3 0% all WA
403 U North Dakota A 1454 13-15 46% all ND
404 Temple U B 1454 2-5 29% all PA
405 Grand Canyon U B 1454 13-12 52% all AZ
406 Central Washington U 1453 14-16 47% all WA
407 Missouri State U 1453 10-11 48% all MO
408 SUNY-Brockport A 1452 5-7 42% all NY
409 Penn U A 1452 8-12 40% all PA
410 Penn St-Berks A 1452 0-3 0% all PA
411 U North Carolina-Greensboro A 1452 7-14 32% all NC
412 Portland Comm C 1451 7-11 39% all OR
413 Drake U 1450 9-15 38% all IA
414 UT-Arlington B 1450 12-15 44% all TX
415 Howard U 1449 0-3 0% all DC
416 C William & Mary B 1449 2-6 25% all VA
417 MiamiOH U A 1449 9-15 38% all OH
418 Millersville U B 1449 0-4 0% all PA
419 Villanova U B 1448 2-6 25% all PA
420 San Francisco St U 1448 9-13 41% all CA
421 St Johns UMN A 1447 13-15 46% all MN
422 U Rhode Island A 1447 7-14 33% all RI
423 U Colorado-Denver B 1446 3-4 43% all CO
424 S IllinoisEd B 1446 4-9 31% all IL
425 U South Dakota A 1446 3-6 33% all SD
426 UW-River Falls A 1446 8-16 33% all WI
427 U Houston B 1445 10-9 53% all TX
428 Siena C 1445 6-9 40% all NY
429 Temple U A 1444 7-10 41% all PA
430 SUNY-Cortland B 1444 2-7 22% all NY
431 U British Columbia A 1444 1-5 17% all BC
432 Coastal Carolina U B 1444 0-4 0% all SC
433 U Kentucky B 1443 6-11 35% all KY
434 U North Georgia A 1443 10-9 50% all GA
435 Santa Rosa Jr C 1442 3-7 30% all
436 Gonzaga U B 1442 3-7 30% all WA
437 American U 1441 6-13 32% all DC
438 Northern Michigan U 1441 2-6 25% all MI
439 Robert Morris U 1441 2-6 25% all PA
440 TAMUGalv A 1440 7-11 39% all TX
441 American U B 1440 1-5 17% all DC
442 Scranton A 1440 1-5 17% all PA
443 Fordham U B 1439 1-6 14% all NY
444 UW-Oshkosh A 1438 21-23 48% all WI
445 Tarleton St U 1437 4-8 33% all TX
446 Benedictine Coll A 1437 0-4 0% all KS
447 AndersonUSC A 1437 7-12 37% all SC
448 U Georgia B 1437 3-10 23% all GA
449 UMass-Dartmouth A 1436 2-7 22% all MA
450 Seattle U A 1435 6-10 38% all WA
← 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.