College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 10 · 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
451 Arizona Christian U 1400 1-7 13% all AZ
452 Seattle U 1400 4-12 25% all WA
453 Colgate U 1400 0-6 0% all NY
454 Colorado Sch Mines B 1399 6-9 40% all CO
455 U Denver B 1399 0-6 0% all CO
456 U Delaware B 1398 4-10 29% all DE
457 Wayne St Co A 1398 4-17 19% all NE
458 Carroll U 1398 3-10 23% all WI
459 UW-Eau Claire B 1397 10-16 38% all WI
460 Western Oregon U B 1396 0-6 0% all OR
461 U Florida C 1395 4-11 25% all FL
462 UTSA B 1394 4-11 27% all TX
463 Louisville B 1392 1-7 13% all KY
464 CSU-Long Beach B 1390 2-9 18% all CA
465 U Pacific A 1390 2-10 17% all CA
466 Oakland U B 1389 1-8 11% all MI
467 Colorado St U B 1388 11-18 38% all CO
468 Grand Canyon U B 1387 11-18 38% all AZ
469 Loyola Marymount A 1386 13-20 39% all CA
470 UW-River Falls B 1385 2-8 20% all WI
471 Winona St U B 1385 4-11 27% all MN
472 Emory B 1385 1-9 10% all GA
473 Merrimack A 1384 1-10 9% all MA
474 Pittsburg St U A 1383 4-13 24% all KS
475 UW-Stevens Point B 1382 4-10 29% all WI
476 Monmouth U 1382 1-9 10% all NJ
477 High Point U A 1381 6-16 27% all NC
478 Northern Illinois U 1381 0-11 0% all IL
479 Northeastern U Oakland A 1381 2-10 17% all CA
480 U Cincinnati B 1379 6-15 29% all OH
481 Xavier U C 1379 0-8 0% all OH
482 U Chicago A 1378 2-18 10% all IL
483 UMich-Flint A 1375 0-8 0% all
484 Illinois St B 1374 6-15 27% all IL
485 Radford U 1374 3-11 21% all VA
486 Truman St U B 1372 4-11 27% all MO
487 Cal Poly Humboldt A 1372 2-10 17% all CA
488 CSU-Channel Islands A 1371 1-10 9% all CA
489 Salve Regina U 1370 1-10 9% all RI
490 Springfield College A 1369 0-9 0% all MA
491 Grand Valley St U B 1367 7-15 32% all MI
492 UT-Arlington B 1365 4-12 25% all TX
493 North Dakota St U B 1364 3-12 18% all ND
494 W Virginia U B 1361 2-11 14% all WV
495 U Mississippi B 1360 0-8 0% all MS
496 St Louis U B 1358 8-16 33% all MO
497 Cornell U B 1356 5-13 28% all NY
498 U North Dakota B 1352 5-14 24% all ND
499 S IllinoisEd B 1350 10-16 36% all IL
500 U St Thomas B 1344 5-13 28% all MN
← Previous12345678910111213Next →

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.