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 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
251 U Nevada-Reno A 1504 15-23 39% all NV
252 C St Benedict A 1504 3-4 38% all MN
253 Michigan St U B 1503 12-9 57% all MI
254 CSU-Chico A 1503 9-23 28% all CA
255 U Richmond A 1503 3-3 50% all VA
256 U North Texas A 1503 12-14 46% all TX
257 U Oklahoma B 1500 18-13 58% all OK
258 Virginia Tech U B 1499 11-12 48% all VA
259 UT-Dallas A 1499 6-6 50% all TX
260 Penn St U B 1498 8-12 40% all PA
261 Bellarmine U 1496 7-9 44% all KY
262 San Jose State U A 1496 16-18 47% all CA
263 Western Oregon U 1495 3-3 50% all OR
264 U Denver A 1495 13-14 48% all CO
265 Indiana U PA B 1494 2-2 50% all PA
266 St Bonaventure U 1494 5-5 50% all NY
267 TexasAM-Corpus Christi A 1494 9-8 53% all TX
268 UW-Whitewater B 1493 7-8 47% all WI
269 MiamiOH U B 1491 12-9 57% all OH
270 Texas Tech U B 1491 9-4 69% all TX
271 George Mason U 1490 1-2 33% all VA
272 Butler B 1489 9-11 45% all IN
273 U Illinois-Chicago A 1489 3-10 21% all IL
274 John Carroll U 1489 5-9 36% all OH
275 Loyola U Maryland B 1487 1-1 33% all MD
276 Appalachian St U B 1484 20-16 56% all NC
277 MSUMoorhead B 1481 1-2 25% all MN
278 U South Dakota B 1480 0-1 0% all SD
279 Towson U B 1478 2-3 40% all MD
280 Duke U A 1478 7-14 33% all NC
281 U South Carolina B 1477 16-14 53% all SC
282 U Toledo A 1476 8-14 36% all OH
283 Clemson U B 1475 15-12 56% all SC
284 U Wyoming A 1474 5-14 26% all WY
285 Truman St U 1473 7-16 30% all MO
286 U Mississippi A 1473 7-15 32% all MS
287 Bucknell U 1472 3-4 43% all PA
288 U North Carolina-Charlotte A 1472 7-8 47% all NC
289 U Buffalo A 1472 5-7 42% all NY
290 Ohio St U B 1472 12-13 48% all OH
291 Niagara U 1471 4-5 44% all NY
292 UT-Arlington A 1471 9-14 39% all TX
293 NON NCVF Team A 1469 11-12 46% all TX
294 U South Florida B 1469 7-5 54% all FL
295 Ithaca C 1468 4-4 50% all NY
296 C of Charleston A 1468 3-5 38% all SC
297 Harvard A 1468 2-3 40% all MA
298 UC-Riverside A 1468 17-23 43% all CA
299 LaFayette C 1467 6-5 55% all PA
300 Kennesaw St U 1467 5-6 45% all GA
← 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.