College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 7 · 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
301 Florida State U B 1478 10-9 53% all FL
302 Southern Conn U 1477 4-7 36% all CT
303 Northern Michigan U A 1477 3-3 50% all MI
304 Claremont C 1477 15-26 37% all CA
305 UT-Arlington A 1477 9-14 39% all TX
306 Savannah College A 1475 2-3 33% all GA
307 UW-Platteville A 1475 7-8 47% all WI
308 Georgetown U 1475 7-14 32% all DC
309 Xavier U B 1474 6-8 40% all OH
310 UL-Lafayette A 1473 4-8 33% all LA
311 Iowa State B 1473 7-7 50% all IA
312 Bentley U 1473 4-6 40% all MA
313 C of New Jersey A 1473 7-8 47% all NJ
314 U Tennessee-Chatt A 1473 1-4 20% all TN
315 U Mississippi A 1473 7-15 32% all MS
316 UW-Whitewater B 1472 7-8 47% all WI
317 St Marys CA A 1472 9-15 38% all CA
318 Butler B 1471 9-11 45% all IN
319 Kennesaw St U 1471 5-6 45% all GA
320 Duke U A 1471 7-14 33% all NC
321 U Denver A 1470 13-14 48% all CO
322 Gustavus Adolphus A 1469 1-3 25% all
323 Clemson U B 1469 11-9 55% all SC
324 Navy A 1468 3-5 38% all
325 South Dakota St U B 1468 3-5 38% all SD
326 S New Hampshire U 1468 2-6 25% all NH
327 Assumption A 1468 3-5 38% all MA
328 Penn St U B 1468 8-12 40% all PA
329 Hofstra U 1468 3-5 38% all NY
330 U Central Florida B 1467 10-11 48% all FL
331 Iona U 1466 1-3 25% all NY
332 U Tampa B 1465 1-3 20% all FL
333 Milwaukee SOE A 1464 8-8 50% all WI
334 U South Alabama A 1463 0-3 0% all AL
335 Azusa Pacific A 1463 1-5 17% all CA
336 Oakland U 1461 4-6 36% all
337 Oregon St U B 1461 11-11 50% all OR
338 Quinnipiac U 1460 6-9 40% all CT
339 Stonehill A 1460 3-6 33% all MA
340 San Diego St U B 1460 33-25 57% all CA
341 Clark U 1459 3-6 33% all MA
342 U New Hampshire A 1459 3-8 27% all NH
343 Fairmont St U 1458 1-3 25% all
344 Virginia Tech U B 1458 11-12 48% all VA
345 LeMoyne A 1458 3-5 38% all NY
346 Florida Gulf Coast U 1457 3-7 25% all FL
347 Rutgers U B 1455 5-7 42% all NJ
348 U Arizona B 1455 22-21 51% all AZ
349 N Kentucky A 1455 7-12 37% all KY
350 Biola A 1454 4-6 40% all
← Previous12345678910Next →

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.