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 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
401 BinghamtonU B 1378 7-11 39% all NY
402 UW-Eau Claire B 1378 10-16 38% all WI
403 UC-Santa Barbara B 1376 13-24 35% all CA
404 Washington and Lee U 1374 0-4 0% all VA
405 Clarion U B 1374 2-6 25% all PA
406 Ohio Northern U 1372 0-4 0% all OH
407 Union U 1372 0-4 0% all IN
408 CSU-San Marcos A 1372 8-25 24% all CA
409 Azusa Pacific A 1372 1-5 17% all CA
410 Metro State Denver U A 1368 5-12 29% all CO
411 Bloomsburg U 1367 1-8 11% all PA
412 St Josephs U 1367 1-6 14% all PA
413 Wayne St Co A 1365 4-17 19% all NE
414 High Point U A 1365 6-16 27% all NC
415 U British Columbia B 1364 2-6 25% all BC
416 Wake Forest U B 1363 0-4 0% all NC
417 Carroll U 1362 3-10 23% all WI
418 Portland State U 1361 2-8 20% all OR
419 U Nebraska-Omaha A 1361 1-6 14% all NE
420 Merrimack A 1360 1-10 9% all MA
421 U New Haven A 1360 3-9 25% all CT
422 Middle Tenn St U 1360 0-5 0% all TN
423 MSUMoorhead A 1359 7-13 29% all MN
424 St Louis U B 1358 12-20 38% all MO
425 U Tennessee-Chatt B 1357 0-4 0% all TN
426 Seton Hall A 1356 2-7 22% all NJ
427 U Akron B 1356 1-7 13% all OH
428 Stevens Inst of Tech A 1355 1-5 17% all NJ
429 Pittsburg St U A 1355 4-13 24% all KS
430 Adrian C 1354 6-11 35% all MI
431 Old Dominion U 1354 3-11 21% all VA
432 U Montana A 1353 6-12 33% all MT
433 Seattle U 1351 4-12 25% all WA
434 Arizona St U B 1350 11-20 35% all AZ
435 American U B 1345 0-4 0% all DC
436 Saginaw Valley St U B 1343 12-13 48% all MI
437 Western Michigan U B 1341 7-10 41% all MI
438 Ohio U B 1340 3-7 30% all OH
439 Metro State Denver U B 1340 2-5 29% all CO
440 Clarion U A 1339 2-5 29% all PA
441 Grand Canyon U B 1338 5-13 28% all AZ
442 Montana St U B 1337 3-8 27% all MT
443 Bradley U 1337 3-10 23% all IL
444 UTSA B 1337 7-16 30% all TX
445 Winona St U B 1336 4-11 27% all MN
446 Grand Valley St U B 1332 10-20 33% all MI
447 Johnson Wales U 1328 0-6 0% all RI
448 U Washington C 1327 0-4 0% all WA
449 UC-Davis B 1327 8-27 23% all CA
450 Indiana U B 1326 1-6 14% all IN
← 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.