Team A exceeded the model's expectation, so the result creates greater rating movement.
Follow the Eagles
Latest USA coverage →USA Rugby
RFC SearchFind rugby fast.
Results-based rankings of all 38 current D1A men's college rugby programs, built from eligible match results across the U.S. college rugby competition network.
Rankings update as new eligible match results are processed by the RFC College Rugby Rankings engine.
| Rank | Team | Conference | Record | RFC Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | California | Independent | 61–10 | 2,218.9 |
| 2 | Navy | Rugby East | 66–8 | 2,093.4 |
| 3 | Life | Rugby East | 46–16 | 2,005.4 |
| 4 | Saint Mary's | California | 51–10 | 1,993.0 |
| 5 | Lindenwood | Midwest | 75–12 | 1,972.2 |
| 6 | Army | Rugby East | 52–21–1 | 1,874.2 |
| 7 | Arizona | Independent | 25–18 | 1,825.8 |
| 8 | BYU | Rocky Mountain | 37–19 | 1,779.8 |
| 9 | Western WashingtonNEW D1A | Independent | 34–13 | 1,753.9 |
| 10 | Cal Poly | California | 43–20–1 | 1,720.6 |
| 11 | San Diego | California | 28–10–1 | 1,715.8 |
| 12 | Mount St. Mary's | Rugby East | 33–28 | 1,701.5 |
| 13 | Long Beach State | California | 35–17 | 1,691.3 |
| 14 | Arkansas State | Midwest | 15–24 | 1,667.4 |
| 15 | Colorado State | Rocky Mountain | 24–10 | 1,656.3 |
| 16 | Davenport | Midwest | 32–28–1 | 1,637.1 |
| 17 | Grand Canyon | Independent | 20–18 | 1,623.2 |
| 18 | St. Thomas (FL) | Independent | 34–10 | 1,616.5 |
| 19 | Penn State | Rugby East | 18–37 | 1,577.8 |
| 20 | Mary Washington | Rugby East | 29–29 | 1,570.4 |
| 21 | Indiana | Big Ten | 34–17 | 1,532.7 |
| 22 | Ohio State | Midwest | 33–19 | 1,524.4 |
| 23 | San Diego State | California | 15–35 | 1,488.5 |
| 24 | Utah | Rocky Mountain | 16–23 | 1,486.7 |
| 25 | Air Force | Rocky Mountain | 14–29 | 1,445.9 |
| 26 | Utah State | Rocky Mountain | 11–21 | 1,415.3 |
| 27 | UC Santa Barbara | California | 24–28–1 | 1,393.6 |
| 28 | Colorado | Rocky Mountain | 15–20 | 1,376.5 |
| 29 | Southern Virginia | Rugby East | 12–32 | 1,373.8 |
| 30 | McKendree | Midwest | 4–21–1 | 1,347.5 |
| 31 | Santa Clara | California | 17–37 | 1,342.2 |
| 32 | Sacramento State | California | 22–28–2 | 1,318.0 |
| 33 | Illinois | Big Ten | 14–26–2 | 1,264.3 |
| 34 | Wyoming | Rocky Mountain | 4–18 | 1,264.0 |
| 35 | Michigan State | Big Ten | 18–22–1 | 1,259.4 |
| 36 | Utah Valley | Rocky Mountain | 8–23 | 1,231.2 |
| 37 | UC Davis | California | 18–34 | 1,200.0 |
| 38 | UC Santa Cruz | California | 9–43–1 | 1,181.5 |
RFC Ratings are generated from eligible match results using RFC's consistent V1.0 methodology. RFC publishes the principles behind its rankings methodology, while exact model parameters and the underlying research dataset remain proprietary to Rugby Fan Central.
Rank is determined by RFC Rating. Record reflects eligible matches included in the RFC rating dataset beginning with the 2021–22 season and updates as new eligible results are processed.
Higher ratings indicate stronger results against the connected college rugby competition network.
Every eligible result is evaluated using the same results-based methodology. Ratings are not manually adjusted based on reputation, preseason expectations or editorial opinion.
Every eligible match is evaluated in context. The model considers the relative strength of the teams entering the match, what happened on the field and the margin of the result.
The same process is applied to every eligible team and every eligible result. There are no reputation bonuses or manual adjustments.
A team's name, conference, history, national titles or reputation do not determine where it enters the rating system. Every program begins from the same baseline.
The model compares the relative strength of the two teams entering the match. A team facing one of the strongest programs in the network is evaluated differently from a team facing a much lower-rated opponent.
Winning as a heavy favorite is different from defeating an opponent that entered the match with a much stronger rating. Unexpected results therefore have the potential to create greater movement.
Larger winning margins can increase the impact of a result, but RFC deliberately limits that effect. One extreme score cannot overwhelm the wider body of results.
Once an eligible match is processed, the teams' updated RFC Ratings carry forward. Those ratings become part of the competitive context used when their next eligible matches are evaluated.
The exact calculation remains part of the RFC rating engine, but the principle is straightforward.
Team A produced a result that exceeded the model's expectation, so the victory has greater rating impact.
Team A was already expected to perform strongly, so the victory normally produces less movement.
RFC publishes the factors that drive the rankings so readers can understand why teams move. The precise weighting, calculation parameters and implementation of the RFC Rating remain part of Rugby Fan Central's proprietary ranking model.
The rating is a comparative value within the connected college rugby results network. A team with a rating twice as large as another team's rating should not be interpreted as being “twice as good.”
RFC does not simply collect every score attached to a college team. A match must meet the model's eligibility rules before it can affect a team's rating.
Official A-side or first-team 15-a-side matches between eligible U.S. college programs.
Conference and eligible non-conference games involving D1A programs.
Eligible playoff and championship XVs results count using the same rating formula as regular-season matches.
A D1A team playing an eligible U.S. college opponent outside D1A can still affect the connected rating network.
Short-form competitions and shortened tournament games are not comparable with full XVs matches.
Only eligible first-team results enter the primary competition network.
Games explicitly identified as exhibition, preseason or non-competitive fixtures are excluded.
The RFC D1A model is built around the connected U.S. college rugby competition network.
Scheduled matches only enter the model when an eligible match was actually played.
If credible sources disagree and RFC cannot establish the correct result, the match is held out until resolved.
D1A programs regularly play other U.S. college teams. Excluding every cross-division result would remove useful information about the relative strength of the wider college rugby network.
RFC therefore allows eligible cross-division XVs matches to connect teams mathematically, while the public D1A table shows only programs that are current D1A members.
If a program appeared in eligible matches during the five-season dataset but is no longer a current D1A member, those historical results remain in the rating network. The team simply does not appear in the current D1A publication table.
The principle is simple: include legitimate first-team U.S. college XVs competition, exclude results that would distort the comparison.
Some RFC rankings may look different from a traditional power ranking because the model is answering a different question.
RFC is not trying to predict which team would win a match tomorrow. It is measuring what each program has earned across a connected five-season results network.
A traditional power ranking may place greater emphasis on recent form, current rosters, injuries, momentum or expectations for the next match.
RFC applies the same formula to every eligible result across five completed seasons. There are no preseason expectations or editorial adjustments.
The RFC Rating includes eligible results from 2021–22 through 2025–26. Recent matches matter because they change the rating, but older eligible results remain part of the path that produced today's number.
A team's rating is affected by who it played and how strong those opponents were at the time. Two teams with similar win-loss records can therefore end up with very different RFC Ratings.
National titles, famous alumni, conference reputation and historical prestige do not directly affect the calculation. Only eligible match results can move the rating.
If an unexpected ranking survives the data audit, it stays. The proper test is whether the underlying results are accurate and the methodology has been applied consistently.
These are not exceptions to the model. They are examples of what happens when the same rules are applied across the entire dataset.
Western Washington enters D1A with an established five-season college results history already connected to the RFC network.
Long Beach State's position is driven by its complete five-season body of eligible results rather than only its most recent stretch of matches.
Strong recent performances matter, but the RFC Rating also carries the results that built the team's position across the full five-season period.
RFC audits unusual results, duplicate fixtures, team identity and score conflicts. Once the underlying data is confirmed, the published rating is the result produced by the model.
The RFC D1A Rating uses a consistent results-based model to evaluate eligible college rugby matches across the connected competition network.
The same methodology is applied to every eligible result. There are no reputation bonuses, preseason votes or editorial overrides used to move teams in the rankings.
Teams rise and fall because of eligible match results. RFC does not manually reposition a team because of reputation, expectations or where we think a program should be ranked.
The RFC Rating does not treat every win or loss as identical. The impact of a result depends on the competitive strength of the teams entering the match and what happens on the field.
RFC publishes the factors that drive rating movement and the rules governing which matches enter the system. The proprietary calculation parameters and underlying research dataset are maintained by Rugby Fan Central.
Readers can understand why teams move without RFC publishing every implementation detail required to recreate the ranking engine.
Each eligible result becomes part of a team's rating history before its next eligible match is processed.
No program receives different treatment because of conference, reputation, national profile or historical success.
RFC identifies potential duplicate fixtures and reconciles duplicate source records before results enter the dataset.
RFC tracks programs across seasons so changes in division or conference membership do not erase legitimate historical results.
When credible sources provide conflicting scores, RFC investigates the result. If the conflict cannot be resolved confidently, the match is excluded until it can.
Historical teams can remain in the connected rating network even when they are no longer current D1A members. Only current D1A programs appear in the published D1A table.
The launch version of the RFC D1A Rating is built from eligible results across five completed college rugby seasons.
A mathematical rating can exist before RFC considers a team's result history sufficiently established for publication.
Substantial connected match history.
Mathematical ranking available with less evidence.
Too little evidence for a stable published comparison.
If two teams have exactly the same RFC Rating, they are ordered alphabetically. No subjective tiebreaker is applied.
Future versions of the RFC Rating may improve as more results become available and the system is tested against new seasons. Any material methodology change will be identified as a new model version rather than applied silently.
RFC V1.0 is built from 1,159 eligible matches collected across five completed college rugby seasons.
Building the rating system required more than finding scores. Results had to be matched to the correct teams, seasons and competition context before they could safely enter the model.
The frozen launch dataset covers five completed seasons, from 2021–22 through 2025–26.
RFC gathers historical scores from available college, conference, competition and official program sources.
Team names are normalized so alternate naming conventions do not accidentally create separate programs.
RFC determines whether the fixture was a first-team XVs match and whether it meets the model's inclusion rules.
Duplicate records are merged, while conflicting scores are investigated before the result can enter the model.
RFC checks season records and unusual rating outcomes against the underlying match ledger before publication.
Once the dataset is frozen, eligible matches are processed chronologically using the published RFC V1.0 formula.
College rugby historical data is not always stored in one complete database. The same fixture can sometimes appear differently across schedules, recaps and competition records.
When records disagree, RFC gives greater weight to detailed official evidence that can establish what actually happened in the match.
RFC Ratings are calculated sequentially, so a corrected historical result can change not only the teams in that match, but also later rating calculations involving those teams.
That is a data correction — not a manual ranking adjustment. RFC reruns the model from the corrected match ledger and publishes the rating the formula produces.
The five completed seasons establish the launch ratings. Results from the 2026–27 season can now move those ratings forward using the same published methodology.
Current D1A membership determines which teams appear in the public ranking table. Historical eligible opponents can remain in the underlying network without appearing in the current D1A rankings.
The formula is not adjusted to force a preferred ranking. The result changes only when the underlying eligible match record changes or new matches are played.
The September 2026 table is the RFC V1.0 baseline. From this point, eligible 2026–27 results can move every team's rating.
There is no preseason reset and no manual reshuffling. New results are added to the existing rating network and processed using the same published formula.
A current D1A program plays an eligible XVs match.
RFC confirms the score and checks that the match meets the eligibility rules.
The result is processed using opponent strength, result and margin of victory.
Teams move only if the new rating changes their position.
As the season develops, RFC can show how results are changing the competitive picture rather than simply publishing a new ranking number.
Which teams gained the most rating points after the latest round of eligible matches.
Which teams lost the most ground and what results caused the change.
Readers can see the size of the rating movement rather than only the change in ranking position.
An unexpected win against a much higher-rated opponent can create one of the largest movements of the week.
The September 2026 rankings establish the first official RFC D1A baseline. There is no earlier published RFC table to compare against, so the launch rankings do not show artificial “up” or “down” movement.
Once new 2026–27 results are processed, movement will be measured against the previous RFC ranking.
A team does not need to wait for a pollster to notice it. Strong results create rating movement automatically.
Rankings, results and rating movement will continue to build from the same V1.0 methodology throughout the season.