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 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
301 Princeton U 1466 4-6 40% all NJ
302 San Diego St U B 1466 23-23 50% all CA
303 Siena C 1466 6-6 50% all NY
304 U Arizona B 1466 16-16 50% all AZ
305 U Kentucky B 1464 13-12 52% all KY
306 CSU-Long Beach B 1462 5-3 63% all CA
307 Rutgers U B 1460 5-7 42% all NJ
308 Slippery Rock U 1460 4-5 44% all PA
309 South Dakota St U 1458 6-13 32% all SD
310 Cal Poly Pomona A 1457 13-20 39% all CA
311 Loyola U B 1457 2-2 40% all IL
312 Bentley U 1454 4-6 40% all MA
313 Georgia Tech B 1453 2-4 33% all GA
314 Utah Tech U B 1452 1-2 33% all UT
315 Iowa State B 1452 7-7 50% all IA
316 St Marys CA A 1451 9-15 38% all CA
317 Washtenaw CC A 1451 0-1 0% all MI
318 UW-Platteville A 1450 7-8 47% all WI
319 U Tennessee-Chatt A 1450 1-4 20% all TN
320 U North Dakota A 1448 10-13 42% all ND
321 Drake U 1448 6-10 38% all IA
322 Southeast MO St A 1448 12-16 43% all MO
323 Rowan U 1447 6-10 38% all NJ
324 C of New Jersey A 1446 7-8 47% all NJ
325 Stonehill A 1445 3-6 33% all MA
326 Stephen F Austin St U 1444 7-7 50% all TX
327 Xavier U B 1444 6-8 40% all OH
328 Oakland U 1443 4-6 36% all MI
329 Simon Frasier U 1441 4-6 40% all BC
330 Auburn U B 1439 8-7 53% all AL
331 Georgetown U 1438 7-14 32% all DC
332 Western Washington U 1438 11-16 41% all WA
333 N Kentucky A 1437 7-12 37% all KY
334 S New Hampshire U 1436 2-6 25% all NH
335 South Dakota St U B 1435 3-5 38% all SD
336 Marquette U B 1434 7-9 44% all WI
337 U Pittsburgh B 1433 11-14 44% all PA
338 UL-Lafayette A 1433 4-8 33% all LA
339 UC-San Diego B 1432 15-22 41% all CA
340 Millersville U 1431 3-11 21% all PA
341 Tufts U 1431 8-13 38% all MA
342 U North Carolina-Chapel Hill B 1431 11-11 50% all NC
343 Sam Houston St U 1429 7-19 27% all TX
344 Prairie View A&M A 1429 5-6 45% all TX
345 American U A 1427 9-12 41% all DC
346 Hofstra U 1426 3-5 38% all NY
347 Northern Michigan U B 1426 2-2 50% all MI
348 Gustavus Adolphus A 1426 1-3 25% all MN
349 Washington St U B 1425 11-8 58% all WA
350 Iona U 1423 1-3 25% all NY
← 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.