College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 8 · 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
351 UA Birmingham A 1422 0-4 0% all AL
352 Clark U 1422 3-6 33% all MA
353 UW-Madison C 1422 5-8 36% all WI
354 Navy A 1421 3-5 38% all MD
355 Northern Michigan U A 1421 3-3 50% all MI
356 Georgia Southern U 1419 0-4 0% all GA
357 Kansas St U B 1416 9-12 43% all KS
358 Florida Gulf Coast U 1415 3-7 25% all FL
359 Milwaukee SOE A 1415 8-8 50% all WI
360 U Florida C 1414 9-14 38% all FL
361 U Tampa B 1413 1-3 20% all FL
362 TAMUGalv A 1412 5-11 31% all TX
363 U South Alabama A 1411 0-3 0% all AL
364 U Minnesota B 1411 9-12 43% all MN
365 U Albany A 1411 6-17 26% all NY
366 Assumption A 1410 3-5 38% all MA
367 Howard U 1409 7-10 39% all DC
368 SUNY-Oneonta A 1409 2-5 29% all NY
369 Portland Comm C A 1409 1-5 17% all OR
370 LeMoyne A 1408 3-5 38% all NY
371 U Maine A 1406 0-3 0% all ME
372 SUNY-Oswego A 1406 9-16 36% all NY
373 Cleveland St U 1406 3-10 21% all OH
374 Savannah College A 1404 2-3 33% all GA
375 U Buffalo B 1404 3-8 27% all NY
376 James Madison U B 1404 5-9 36% all VA
377 Western Carolina U A 1403 7-13 35% all NC
378 U Alabama B 1402 6-11 35% all AL
379 Colorado St U B 1399 16-20 44% all CO
380 San Francisco St U 1398 10-15 40% all CA
381 Clarkson U 1397 1-5 17% all NY
382 SUNY-Fredonia A 1397 6-11 35% all NY
383 Missouri U ST A 1394 8-13 38% all MO
384 Connecticut Coll A 1389 0-3 0% all CT
385 Purdue U C 1388 0-4 0% all IN
386 UW-Stout A 1388 7-16 30% all WI
387 Colby College A 1387 0-3 0% all ME
388 N Carolina C U 1387 0-3 0% all NC
389 Illinois St B 1387 9-18 32% all IL
390 Ball State U B 1386 0-3 0% all IN
391 U Cincinnati B 1386 9-18 33% all OH
392 Fairmont St U 1386 1-3 25% all PA
393 Wesleyan U 1385 0-3 0% all CT
394 George Wash U B 1384 0-4 0% all DC
395 U North Carolina-Greensboro A 1384 0-3 0% all NC
396 Claremont C 1383 9-20 31% all CA
397 Creighton U B 1383 1-4 20% all NE
398 Central Washington U 1382 7-13 35% all WA
399 Marist C 1381 7-13 35% all NY
400 U Southern Maine A 1380 1-6 14% all ME
← Previous1234567891011Next →

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.