College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 2 · 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
51 U Delaware A 1666 17-6 74% all DE
52 U Victoria A 1661 15-3 83% all BC
53 U Iowa B 1660 20-2 91% all IA
54 Penn U A 1659 15-6 71% all PA
55 Clemson U 1657 14-11 56% all SC
56 UW-Eau Claire A 1657 19-4 83% all WI
57 North Carolina St U 1656 15-5 75% all NC
58 Colorado St U 1655 17-11 61% all CO
59 U Georgia A 1654 14-13 52% all GA
60 W Virginia U 1653 15-5 75% all WV
61 UW-Madison A 1652 16-7 70% all WI
62 North Dakota St U 1652 26-9 74% all ND
63 Oregon St U A 1648 22-10 69% all OR
64 George Wash U 1647 15-4 79% all DC
65 Virginia Tech U A 1646 16-7 70% all VA
66 Texas St U A 1642 17-12 59% all TX
67 UW-LaCrosse A 1641 18-4 78% all WI
68 CSU-Monterey Bay A 1638 19-6 76% all CA
69 U Kansas A 1638 15-8 65% all KS
70 E Carolina A 1637 16-12 57% all NC
71 Va Commonwealth U 1637 13-7 65% all VA
72 Central Michigan A 1636 15-7 68% all MI
73 U Notre Dame A 1636 6-3 67% all
74 U South Florida A 1633 12-9 57% all FL
75 UC-Irvine A 1632 31-24 56% all CA
76 Cal Poly SLO B 1632 25-14 64% all CA
77 UC-Irvine B 1631 13-0 100% all CA
78 Boise St U 1628 16-9 64% all ID
79 U Oklahoma A 1627 17-13 57% all OK
80 U Arkansas A 1627 16-14 53% all AR
81 Utah State U A 1625 15-14 52% all UT
82 CSU-Fullerton A 1625 25-24 51% all CA
83 Creighton U A 1623 14-8 64% all NE
84 Texas Christian U A 1623 12-8 60% all TX
85 Ohio St U A 1623 15-12 56% all OH
86 MiamiOH U A 1622 10-7 59% all OH
87 UM-Duluth A 1622 15-4 79% all
88 U Connecticut A 1621 17-9 65% all CT
89 Michigan St U A 1620 9-6 60% all MI
90 U Florida B 1620 23-6 79% all FL
91 UNLV A 1619 13-10 57% all NV
92 Drexel U 1616 11-3 79% all PA
93 Kansas St U 1612 14-10 58% all KS
94 Northeastern U 1611 13-8 62% all MA
95 U Missouri B 1610 14-7 67% all MO
96 Grand Canyon U 1608 7-5 58% all
97 Washington St U 1608 19-9 68% all WA
98 UTSA A 1608 12-14 46% all TX
99 Southern Methodist A 1608 17-10 63% all TX
100 St Louis U A 1607 16-12 57% all MO
← Previous12345Next →

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.