College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 3 · 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
101 Baylor U A 1660 15-14 52% all TX
102 U South Florida A 1658 12-9 57% all FL
103 North Dakota St U 1657 26-9 74% all ND
104 Providence (RI) A 1656 10-5 67% all RI
105 SUNY-Stony Brook A 1655 12-7 63% all NY
106 U Miami A 1654 11-6 65% all FL
107 UTSA A 1653 12-14 46% all TX
108 Utah State U A 1650 15-14 52% all UT
109 U Utah A 1650 13-8 62% all UT
110 Florida State U 1650 10-11 48% all FL
111 Ricks Co A 1649 12-7 63% all ID
112 UW-LaCrosse B 1648 18-6 75% all WI
113 Wash U-STL A 1647 16-9 64% all MO
114 Bowling Green St A 1646 8-7 53% all OH
115 Cal Poly SLO B 1646 25-14 64% all CA
116 U Rhode Island A 1645 17-10 63% all RI
117 U Connecticut B 1644 20-7 74% all CT
118 Rochester Inst A 1642 14-10 58% all NY
119 Marquette U A 1642 7-7 50% all WI
120 U Texas B 1642 19-12 61% all TX
121 Texas Tech U A 1640 12-11 52% all TX
122 Temple U A 1640 13-11 54% all PA
123 U South Carolina A 1639 11-15 42% all SC
124 Santa Clara U 1637 16-15 52% all CA
125 U Arkansas B 1632 10-3 77% all AR
126 CSU-Monterey Bay A 1631 19-6 76% all CA
127 U Dayton B 1631 15-7 68% all OH
128 SUNY-Geneseo A 1627 9-4 69% all NY
129 U Arkansas A 1626 16-14 53% all AR
130 U Rochester A 1625 5-5 50% all NY
131 Taylor U 1625 10-6 63% all IN
132 U Iowa A 1623 16-14 53% all IA
133 S IllinoisEd A 1623 19-13 59% all IL
134 U Tampa A 1622 10-10 50% all FL
135 UW-Whitewater A 1621 17-6 74% all WI
136 U North Carolina-Chapel Hill C 1616 16-7 70% all NC
137 U N Colorado A 1616 13-5 72% all CO
138 CSU-Fullerton A 1612 19-19 50% all CA
139 Missouri State U 1608 12-12 50% all MO
140 Boise St U 1608 16-9 64% all ID
141 Saginaw Valley St U 1608 18-8 69% all MI
142 Indiana U PA A 1605 4-0 100% all PA
143 Winona St U 1605 14-9 61% all MN
144 Texas Christian U B 1604 10-3 77% all TX
145 U Tennessee B 1602 23-9 72% all TN
146 UW-Stevens Point A 1601 16-10 62% all WI
147 U Alabama A 1599 13-12 52% all AL
148 Sacred Heart U 1599 6-3 67% all CT
149 Grand Canyon U A 1596 7-11 39% all AZ
150 U Mass-Lowell A 1596 10-10 50% all MA
← Previous123456Next →

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.