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 2006 Elo rating and 43-4 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 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 Louisiana St U B 1325 6-16 27% all LA
452 High Point U B 1323 0-5 0% all NC
453 U North Georgia A 1323 3-13 18% all GA
454 BemidjiSt U A 1322 0-5 0% all MN
455 U Delaware B 1320 4-10 29% all DE
456 C of Charleston B 1319 1-7 13% all SC
457 Texas St U B 1319 3-8 27% all TX
458 Western New England U 1318 1-6 14% all MA
459 Florida Intl U B 1316 0-5 0% all FL
460 TexasAM-Corpus Christi B 1315 3-8 27% all TX
461 U Chicago A 1310 2-18 10% all IL
462 U Denver B 1308 0-6 0% all CO
463 Middlebury C 1307 0-6 0% all VT
464 Brandeis U 1306 0-6 0% all MA
465 Emory B 1304 1-9 10% all GA
466 U Pacific A 1298 2-10 17% all CA
467 Cornell U B 1298 5-13 28% all NY
468 Radford U 1295 3-11 21% all VA
469 Colgate U 1295 0-6 0% all NY
470 Oakland U B 1293 1-8 11% all MI
471 Arizona Christian U 1292 1-7 13% all AZ
472 UW-Stevens Point B 1291 4-10 29% all WI
473 Canisius Co A 1290 0-6 0% all NY
474 U St Thomas B 1289 6-19 24% all MN
475 Western Oregon U B 1282 0-6 0% all OR
476 Xavier U C 1282 0-8 0% all OH
477 North Dakota St U B 1279 3-12 18% all ND
478 U Southern Cal B 1278 11-29 28% all CA
479 W Virginia U B 1278 2-11 14% all WV
480 Oklahoma St U B 1276 7-16 30% all OK
481 S IllinoisEd B 1274 11-22 31% all IL
482 U Washington B 1271 5-21 19% all WA
483 Monmouth U 1270 1-9 10% all NJ
484 Northern Illinois U 1270 0-11 0% all IL
485 Colorado Sch Mines B 1266 6-9 40% all CO
486 Indiana St U 1264 2-18 10% all IN
487 U Mississippi B 1262 0-8 0% all MS
488 Springfield College A 1261 0-9 0% all MA
489 Oklahoma Baptist U 1259 3-8 27% all OK
490 CSU-Fresno A 1258 2-22 8% all CA
491 UW-River Falls B 1252 2-8 20% all WI
492 Cal Poly Humboldt A 1251 2-10 17% all CA
493 Salve Regina U 1248 1-10 9% all RI
494 St Olaf A 1247 1-12 8% all MN
495 UMich-Flint A 1247 0-8 0% all MI
496 Truman St U B 1236 4-11 27% all MO
497 UT-Arlington B 1229 4-12 25% all TX
498 U North Dakota B 1227 5-14 24% all ND
499 Wayne St Co B 1226 3-16 16% all NE
500 Central Connecticut St U 1223 3-16 16% all CT
← 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.