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 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
51 Clemson U 1735 14-11 56% all SC
52 U St Thomas A 1732 21-6 78% all MN
53 U Delaware A 1731 17-6 74% all DE
54 Parker U 1729 15-4 79% all TX
55 W Virginia U 1729 15-5 75% all WV
56 U Georgia A 1726 14-13 52% all GA
57 MiamiOH U A 1724 10-7 59% all OH
58 UC-Berkeley B 1722 29-7 81% all CA
59 Penn U A 1720 15-6 71% all PA
60 CSU-Northridge A 1719 30-8 79% all CA
61 Texas Christian U A 1714 12-8 60% all TX
62 CSU-Long Beach A 1713 26-19 58% all CA
63 U Oklahoma A 1711 17-13 57% all OK
64 U Victoria A 1710 15-3 83% all BC
65 Purdue U A 1707 13-7 65% all IN
66 U Missouri B 1707 14-7 67% all MO
67 Colorado St U 1706 17-11 61% all CO
68 Wright State U 1705 11-5 69% all OH
69 Creighton U A 1703 14-8 64% all NE
70 U Colorado A 1698 10-13 43% all CO
71 U Virginia A 1696 16-7 70% all VA
72 U Florida B 1694 23-6 79% all FL
73 Louisville A 1693 9-5 64% all KY
74 U Kansas A 1692 15-8 65% all KS
75 Central Michigan A 1692 15-7 68% all MI
76 Oregon St U A 1688 22-10 69% all OR
77 Northeastern U 1688 13-8 62% all MA
78 U Iowa B 1686 25-5 83% all IA
79 West Chester U 1686 11-8 58% all PA
80 UNLV A 1684 13-10 57% all NV
81 Southern Methodist A 1682 17-10 63% all TX
82 E Carolina A 1681 16-12 57% all NC
83 George Wash U 1681 15-4 79% all DC
84 UW-LaCrosse A 1680 18-4 78% all WI
85 Ohio St U A 1679 15-12 56% all OH
86 Washington St U 1677 19-9 68% all WA
87 U Illinois A 1677 14-9 61% all IL
88 UM-Duluth A 1675 15-4 79% all MN
89 Stanford A 1675 18-16 53% all CA
90 Va Commonwealth U 1674 13-7 65% all VA
91 U Connecticut A 1674 17-9 65% all CT
92 UNC-Wilmington A 1673 9-5 64% all NC
93 Kansas St U 1669 14-10 58% all KS
94 Drexel U 1667 11-3 79% all PA
95 U Illinois B 1666 13-9 59% all IL
96 Colorado Mesa U 1663 13-7 65% all CO
97 St Louis U A 1663 16-12 57% all MO
98 MaryvilleU-SL A 1662 12-3 80% all MO
99 Illinois St A 1661 12-9 57% all IL
100 Texas St U A 1660 17-12 59% all TX
← 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.