BallKnowMe college football, by the numbers

Player ratings 2025 season

These are 2025 grades, not 2026.

2026 hasn’t been played and no source has published 2026 rosters yet, so there is nothing to grade for this year. Showing last season’s number as if it described this year’s team would be guessing. These update once real rosters and real games arrive.

All positions QB RB WR TE OL DL LB DB K P All D1 FBS FCS
Pos rankPlayerPosSchool GradeG2025 season
#1 Diego Pavia QB Vanderbilt FBS 99 12 3,192 pass yds · 27 TD · 8 INT
#1 Joshua Dye RB Southern Utah FCS 99 12 1,831 rush yds · 28 TD · 7 rec
#1 Jared Richardson WR Pennsylvania FCS 99 10 80 rec · 1,033 yds · 12 TD
#1 Rasheem Biles LB Pittsburgh FBS 99 9 84 tkl · 2.5 sacks · 12.0 TFL
#1 Michael Trigg TE Baylor FBS 99 11 50 rec · 694 yds · 6 TD
#1 Jaxton Eck DL New Mexico FBS 99 12 126 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 6.5 TFL
#1 Ahmaad Moses DB SMU FBS 99 12 91 tkl · 2 PD · 5 INT
#2 Dalton Johnson DB Arizona FBS 99 12 97 tkl · 7 PD · 4 INT
#2 Nadame Tucker DL Western Michigan FBS 99 13 55 tkl · 14.5 sacks · 21.0 TFL
#2 Skyler Bell WR UConn FBS 99 12 101 rec · 1,278 yds · 13 TD
#2 Kam Robinson LB Virginia FBS 98 7 64 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 4.5 TFL
#2 Caleb Hawkins RB North Texas FBS 98 12 1,236 rush yds · 23 TD · 29 rec
#3 Boogie Trotter DB Marshall FBS 98 12 73 tkl · 5 PD · 5 INT
#1 Lucas Carneiro K Ole Miss FBS 97 12 22 FG · 48 XP · 114 pts
#3 Dylan Labarbera DL Nevada FBS 97 12 87 tkl · 6.5 sacks · 17.0 TFL
#3 Nico Brown WR Yale FCS 96 10 71 rec · 1,085 yds · 11 TD
#4 Jacob Fields DB Louisiana Tech FBS 96 12 91 tkl · 5 PD · 3 INT
#3 Caden Fordham LB NC State FBS 95 12 130 tkl · 3.5 sacks · 8.5 TFL
#3 Kente Edwards RB Lafayette FCS 95 10 1,454 rush yds · 20 TD · 10 rec
#4 Caden Curry DL Ohio State FBS 95 13 60 tkl · 11.0 sacks · 16.5 TFL
#4 Danny Scudero WR San José State FBS 95 12 88 rec · 1,291 yds · 10 TD
#5 Ian Foster DB Southern Miss FBS 95 12 75 tkl · 7 PD · 3 INT
#2 Byrum Brown QB South Florida FBS 94 12 3,158 pass yds · 28 TD · 7 INT
#1 Ryan Eckley P Michigan State FBS 94 12 49 punts · 48.5 yd avg
#1 Gabe Blair team-inferred OL North Texas FBS 94 1 —
#2 Eli Stowers TE Vanderbilt FBS 94 12 62 rec · 769 yds · 4 TD
#6 Alex McLaughlin DB Washington FBS 94 12 90 tkl · 6 PD · 2 INT
#5 Langston Hardy DL Wake Forest FBS 94 12 65 tkl · 7.0 sacks · 15.0 TFL
#5 Makai Lemon WR USC FBS 94 12 79 rec · 1,156 yds · 11 TD
#4 Owen Long LB Colorado State FBS 94 12 151 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 5.0 TFL
#4 Jeremiyah Love RB Notre Dame FBS 94 12 1,372 rush yds · 18 TD · 27 rec
#7 Brevin Hamblin DB Utah State FBS 93 12 102 tkl · 6 PD · 1 INT
#6 Cameron Robertson DL SMU FBS 93 9 49 tkl · 5.0 sacks · 10.0 TFL
#6 Jeremiah Smith WR Ohio State FBS 93 12 80 rec · 1,086 yds · 11 TD
#5 Bryun Parham LB UConn FBS 93 12 116 tkl · 10.5 sacks · 14.5 TFL
#5 Emmett Johnson RB Nebraska FBS 92 12 1,451 rush yds · 12 TD · 46 rec
#8 Noah Avinger DB Utah State FBS 92 12 84 tkl · 10 PD · 3 INT
#7 J'Mond Tapp DL Southern Miss FBS 92 12 67 tkl · 7.5 sacks · 11.5 TFL
#7 Eric McAlister WR TCU FBS 92 11 64 rec · 1,121 yds · 10 TD
#4 Mark Langston team-inferred OL Indiana FBS 92 1 —
#3 Carter Smith team-inferred OL Indiana FBS 92 1 —
#2 Pat Coogan team-inferred OL Indiana FBS 92 1 —
#3 Haynes King QB Georgia Tech FBS 92 11 2,697 pass yds · 12 TD · 5 INT
#9 Eli Blakey DB Miami (OH) FBS 92 13 105 tkl · 8 PD · 2 INT
#6 Jacob Rodriguez LB Texas Tech FBS 92 13 117 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 11.0 TFL
#6 Rodney Nelson RB Monmouth FCS 92 12 1,805 rush yds · 18 TD · 30 rec
#3 Tanner Koziol TE Houston FBS 92 12 65 rec · 651 yds · 5 TD
#2 Aidan Birr K Georgia Tech FBS 92 12 25 FG · 42 XP · 117 pts
#8 Keyshawn James-Newby DL New Mexico FBS 92 11 48 tkl · 8.0 sacks · 13.0 TFL
#8 Treyvhon Saunders WR Colgate FCS 91 6 50 rec · 700 yds · 6 TD

What this grade is. Box-score production, adjusted for who it came against, shrunk toward the positional average when a player has few games, then ranked within position — so 50 is average for that spot and 85+ is elite. A 90 quarterback and a 90 corner are each elite for their position; the numbers aren’t comparable across positions in any other way.

What it isn’t. It has no charting or play-by-play grading behind it, so it rewards production rather than technique — a back on a run-heavy team gets more chances to produce than an equally good back who touches it half as often. Offensive line grades are team-inferred: college football publishes no individual OL box stats anywhere, so those rows carry the team’s offensive rating and are flagged, not a measurement of the player. Kickers and punters are graded on volume-light stats and are the least reliable.