College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season · Ranked by Elo rating

Rankings last updated:

The VolleyLens College Club Women's Volleyball Rankings track hundreds of women'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 San Diego St U A with a 1965 Elo rating and 43-4 record. Rankings reflect the 2025-2026 season.

Youth Club Volleyball Power Rankings
Comprehensive women'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 women's volleyball rankings.
#TeamEloRecordWin%AgeState
1 San Diego St U A 1965 43-4 91% all CA
2 Utah Valley A 1898 48-9 84% all UT
3 U Florida A 1829 28-4 88% all FL
4 Appalachian St U A 1823 29-4 88% all NC
5 Cal Poly SLO A 1822 33-6 85% all CA
6 Texas A&M A 1808 28-4 88% all TX
7 Penn St U 1772 19-5 79% all PA
8 CSU-Northridge A 1770 38-12 76% all CA
9 U North Carolina-Chapel Hill A 1761 21-2 91% all NC
10 Grand Valley St U A 1752 18-5 78% all MI
11 UC-San Diego A 1746 33-20 62% all CA
12 U Tennessee A 1742 19-5 79% all TN
13 UC-Davis A 1731 28-9 76% all CA
14 U Washington A 1731 28-11 72% all WA
15 U Central Florida A 1730 18-2 90% all FL
16 U Arizona A 1728 20-21 49% all AZ
17 Colorado Sch Mines A 1724 22-2 92% all CO
18 U Maryland A 1724 16-2 89% all MD
19 Boston C 1723 19-2 90% all MA
20 MSU-Mankato A 1718 20-3 87% all MN
21 UC-Los Angeles A 1718 29-19 60% all CA
22 U Cincinnati A 1716 19-7 73% all OH
23 UC-Berkeley A 1715 26-12 68% all CA
24 CSU-Long Beach A 1714 36-21 63% all CA
25 Arizona St U A 1711 22-12 65% all AZ
26 Georgia Tech A 1711 16-6 73% all GA
27 U Texas A 1707 21-8 72% all TX
28 U Pittsburgh A 1703 16-4 80% all PA
29 James Madison U A 1701 13-5 72% all VA
30 U Kentucky A 1697 16-5 76% all KY
31 Florida Atlantic U A 1695 18-4 82% all FL
32 U St Thomas A 1693 21-6 78% all MN
33 U Minnesota A 1693 17-8 68% all MN
34 Butler A 1692 26-3 90% all IN
35 Oklahoma St U 1692 19-13 59% all OK
36 U Southern Cal A 1691 28-21 57% all CA
37 Auburn U A 1690 19-5 79% all AL
38 UC-Berkeley B 1688 29-7 81% all CA
39 Texas A&M B 1687 24-6 80% all TX
40 Loyola U 1683 14-6 70% all IL
41 Boston U 1682 16-6 73% all MA
42 Kent St U 1682 16-5 76% all OH
43 Rutgers U A 1681 15-7 68% all NJ
44 U Mass-Amherst A 1676 15-4 79% all MA
45 U Virginia A 1675 16-7 70% all VA
46 U Dayton A 1674 20-6 77% all OH
47 UC-Santa Barbara A 1671 30-21 59% all CA
48 U Missouri A 1669 16-7 70% all MO
49 U Oregon A 1668 23-10 70% all OR
50 Parker U 1666 15-4 79% all
1234Next →

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.