College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 5 · 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
201 Lehigh U 1546 5-4 56% all PA
202 Columbia U 1545 5-5 50% all MD
203 Montana St U A 1544 12-10 55% all MT
204 Tarleton St U 1544 12-12 50% all TX
205 Missouri State U B 1543 9-6 60% all MO
206 U Maryland B 1542 11-6 65% all MD
207 U Kansas B 1541 14-8 64% all KS
208 U Northern Iowa B 1540 7-6 54% all IA
209 DePaul U 1539 7-10 41% all IL
210 U San Diego A 1537 11-17 39% all CA
211 Northwestern A 1537 8-9 47% all IL
212 UC-Los Angeles B 1537 16-13 55% all CA
213 Fairfield U 1536 6-4 60% all CT
214 Quinnipiac U 1534 6-9 40% all CT
215 UW-Green Bay A 1533 13-9 59% all WI
216 U Idaho A 1533 7-9 44% all ID
217 U Missouri C 1533 12-10 55% all MO
218 UW-Oshkosh A 1532 11-9 52% all WI
219 UC Santa Cruz A 1531 18-18 50% all CA
220 Worcester Poly Inst A 1529 6-7 46% all MA
221 Coastal Carolina U 1527 2-1 67% all SC
222 Indiana U A 1527 2-5 29% all IN
223 Purdue U Indy A 1525 2-1 50% all IN
224 Elon U A 1525 12-11 52% all NC
225 E Kentucky A 1525 10-9 53% all KY
226 Youngstown St U 1525 5-7 42% all OH
227 U Central Florida B 1524 15-13 54% all FL
228 U Michigan A 1523 9-11 45% all MI
229 Montclair St U 1522 10-14 42% all NJ
230 Ball State U 1522 8-12 36% all IN
231 U North Florida A 1521 7-8 41% all FL
232 U New Hampshire A 1520 3-8 27% all NH
233 Fordham U 1517 7-6 54% all NY
234 C Holy Cross A 1517 5-5 50% all MA
235 Case Western Reserve U 1517 8-10 44% all OH
236 SUNY-Cortland A 1517 8-9 47% all NY
237 Duke U B 1516 3-2 60% all NC
238 U Victoria B 1515 11-6 65% all BC
239 Kent St U B 1514 9-8 53% all OH
240 Yale U 1514 8-7 53% all CT
241 U Miami B 1514 3-2 60% all FL
242 Oregon St U B 1512 11-11 50% all OR
243 U Nebraska A 1512 10-15 40% all NE
244 Utah Tech U A 1511 9-12 43% all UT
245 Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst A 1508 12-8 60% all NY
246 U South Dakota A 1506 9-7 56% all SD
247 Rice U 1506 7-10 41% all TX
248 E Michigan U 1505 1-1 50% all MI
249 Gonzaga U B 1505 9-8 53% all WA
250 Southern Conn U 1504 4-7 36% all CT
← Previous12345678Next →

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.