College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 6 · 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
251 St Bonaventure U 1499 5-5 50% all NY
252 Michigan St U B 1498 8-6 57% all MI
253 U North Texas A 1498 12-14 46% all TX
254 Colorado Christian U 1497 7-8 47% all CO
255 Stephen F Austin St U 1497 7-7 50% all TX
256 Marquette U A 1497 1-5 17% all
257 Kent St U B 1496 9-8 53% all OH
258 Harvard A 1495 2-3 40% all MA
259 C St Benedict A 1494 3-4 38% all
260 Gonzaga U B 1494 9-8 53% all WA
261 UC-Los Angeles B 1493 16-13 55% all CA
262 Slippery Rock U 1493 4-5 44% all
263 Indiana U PA B 1492 2-2 50% all
264 MiamiOH U B 1492 12-9 57% all OH
265 Rice U 1492 7-10 41% all TX
266 Siena C 1491 6-6 50% all NY
267 U San Francisco A 1491 12-13 48% all CA
268 U Missouri C 1491 12-10 55% all MO
269 Marquette U B 1491 5-4 56% all
270 Loyola U B 1490 2-2 40% all
271 San Jose State U A 1490 16-18 47% all CA
272 Princeton U 1489 4-6 40% all
273 Rowan U 1489 6-10 38% all NJ
274 SUNY-Cortland A 1489 8-9 47% all NY
275 John Carroll U 1489 5-9 36% all
276 U Buffalo A 1488 5-7 42% all NY
277 Texas St U B 1488 2-3 40% all TX
278 George Mason U 1487 1-2 33% all
279 Georgia Tech B 1487 2-4 33% all GA
280 U Toledo A 1487 8-14 36% all OH
281 Truman St U 1487 7-16 30% all MO
282 Prairie View A&M A 1487 5-6 45% all TX
283 UC-Santa Barbara B 1487 24-25 49% all CA
284 Brown A 1487 13-10 57% all RI
285 MSUMoorhead B 1486 1-2 25% all
286 Northern Michigan U B 1485 2-2 50% all MI
287 UC-Riverside B 1485 6-6 50% all CA
288 Bucknell U 1485 3-4 43% all PA
289 Niagara U 1484 4-5 44% all NY
290 Simon Frasier U 1483 4-6 40% all BC
291 Utah Tech U B 1483 1-2 33% all UT
292 Washtenaw CC A 1482 0-1 0% all
293 U Idaho A 1482 7-9 44% all ID
294 U South Dakota B 1482 0-1 0% all SD
295 C of Charleston A 1481 3-5 38% all SC
296 Towson U B 1481 2-3 40% all MD
297 Washington St U B 1480 11-8 58% all WA
298 Bellarmine U 1479 7-9 44% all KY
299 CSU-Northridge B 1479 6-6 50% all CA
300 NON NCVF Team A 1479 11-12 46% all TX
← Previous123456789Next →

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.