College Club Women's Volleyball Team Rankings

2025-2026 Season — Page 9 · 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
401 George Wash U B 1428 0-4 0% all DC
402 Purdue U C 1428 0-4 0% all IN
403 St Josephs U 1428 1-6 14% all PA
404 Southeast MO St A 1426 12-16 43% all MO
405 Bloomsburg U 1426 1-8 11% all PA
406 Seton Hall A 1425 2-7 22% all NJ
407 U Tennessee-Chatt B 1425 0-4 0% all TN
408 TAMUGalv A 1425 5-11 31% all TX
409 U Washington C 1424 0-4 0% all WA
410 Millersville U 1423 3-11 21% all PA
411 BemidjiSt U A 1422 0-5 0% all
412 Old Dominion U 1422 3-11 21% all VA
413 Western New England U 1421 1-6 14% all MA
414 Saginaw Valley St U B 1421 12-13 48% all MI
415 U British Columbia B 1421 2-6 25% all BC
416 Metro State Denver U A 1421 5-12 29% all CO
417 Missouri U ST A 1420 8-13 38% all MO
418 Florida Intl U B 1419 0-5 0% all
419 Western Michigan U B 1419 7-10 41% all MI
420 U Albany A 1418 6-17 26% all NY
421 SUNY-Oswego A 1417 9-16 36% all NY
422 Cal Baptist U 1416 3-8 27% all
423 High Point U B 1416 0-5 0% all NC
424 Adrian C 1416 6-11 35% all
425 U Akron B 1415 1-7 13% all
426 U Buffalo B 1414 3-8 27% all NY
427 Central Washington U 1414 7-13 35% all WA
428 Ohio U B 1414 3-7 30% all OH
429 U New Haven A 1413 3-9 25% all CT
430 Marist C 1413 7-13 35% all NY
431 U Alabama B 1412 6-11 35% all AL
432 Kansas St U B 1412 9-12 43% all KS
433 Western Carolina U A 1411 7-13 35% all NC
434 BinghamtonU B 1411 7-11 39% all NY
435 UW-Stout A 1410 7-16 30% all WI
436 Brandeis U 1410 0-6 0% all MA
437 Middlebury C 1409 0-6 0% all VT
438 Johnson Wales U 1409 0-6 0% all RI
439 Bradley U 1406 3-10 23% all IL
440 Canisius Co A 1405 0-6 0% all NY
441 U North Georgia A 1404 3-13 18% all GA
442 U Minnesota B 1404 9-12 43% all MN
443 C of Charleston B 1403 1-7 13% all SC
444 Oklahoma Baptist U 1403 3-8 27% all OK
445 Montana St U B 1402 3-8 27% all MT
446 CSU-Fullerton B 1402 2-9 18% all CA
447 Tufts U 1401 8-13 38% all MA
448 U Montana A 1401 6-12 33% all MT
449 TexasAM-Corpus Christi B 1401 3-8 27% all TX
450 MSUMoorhead A 1401 7-13 29% all
← Previous123456789101112Next →

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.