BallKnowMe college football, by the numbers

Player ratings 2026 season

All positions QB RB WR TE DL LB DB K P All D1 FBS FCS
Pos rankPlayerPos School Grade G2026 season
#2 Khalid Bueno DL Stony Brook FCS 99 3 21 tkl · 4.5 sacks · 8.5 TFL
#2 Noah Kjar WR Weber State FCS 98 3 22 rec · 385 yds · 6 TD
#3 Joseph Garcia DB Stony Brook FCS 97 3 34 tkl · 1 INT
#2 Luke Yoder RB Lehigh FCS 96 3 419 rush yds · 9 TD · 3 rec
#4 Parker Vance DB Southern Utah FCS 96 3 18 tkl · 4 PD · 3 INT
#1 Mason Lindberg K Idaho State FCS 95 3 7 FG · 15 XP · 36 pts
#5 Bryce Smith DB Eastern Washington FCS 95 3 30 tkl · 3 PD · 1 INT
#6 Bryson Adamoh DB Central Arkansas FCS 94 2 5 tkl · 3 PD · 3 INT
#1 Max Zuluaga P UT Martin FCS 94 3 8 punts · 51.4 yd avg
#3 Tylan Hines RB Tarleton State FCS 94 3 575 rush yds · 4 TD · 6 rec
#7 Michael Henderson DB Arkansas-Pine Bluff FCS 93 3 21 tkl · 3 PD · 1 INT
#5 Andrew Osmun LB Fordham FCS 92 3 29 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#4 Eli Gillman RB Montana FCS 92 3 328 rush yds · 7 TD · 5 rec
#9 Dillon Williams DB Abilene Christian FCS 92 3 29 tkl · 1 PD
#10 Jeremiah Hudson-Davis DB Alabama A&M FCS 91 3 35 tkl · 2 PD · 1 INT
#11 Tae Martin DB North Alabama FCS 90 3 23 tkl · 4 PD
#12 Zarion Walters DL North Carolina Central FCS 90 3 17 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 6.0 TFL
#12 Trey Cotton DB UT Martin FCS 90 3 23 tkl · 1 INT
#3 Joshua Acord TE Southern Utah FCS 90 2 11 rec · 128 yds · 3 TD
#14 Trehsyn Fesili DL Idaho State FCS 90 3 20 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#6 Floyd Chalk RB Southern Utah FCS 90 3 427 rush yds · 6 TD · 4 rec
#15 Ibrahim Sanogo DL Southern Illinois FCS 89 2 11 tkl · 3.5 sacks · 5.5 TFL
#9 Omari Bursey LB Villanova FCS 89 3 34 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 4.5 TFL
#10 Galen Combs WR Robert Morris FCS 89 3 15 rec · 307 yds · 5 TD
#11 Marquis Willis WR Tarleton State FCS 88 3 19 rec · 320 yds · 3 TD
#17 Timothy Jasper DB Alcorn State FCS 88 3 31 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#2 Luke Silvernale P North Dakota FCS 88 3 5 punts · 49.8 yd avg
#11 Tre Yanez LB Gardner-Webb FCS 88 3 31 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 5.0 TFL
#20 Avery Howard DL North Alabama FCS 88 3 17 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 5.0 TFL
#20 DJ Delmore DB Southeast Missouri State FCS 87 3 22 tkl · 2 PD
#14 Xavier Johnson WR North Alabama FCS 87 3 19 rec · 386 yds · 2 TD
#24 Chris Bacon DL Maine FCS 87 3 8 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#23 Lono Solomon DB Portland State FCS 87 3 19 tkl · 2 PD
#24 Isaac Redford DB Portland State FCS 86 3 17 tkl · 2 PD · 2 INT
#11 Mason Pickett-Hicks RB South Carolina State FCS 86 3 417 rush yds · 3 TD · 6 rec
#16 Lynn Wyche-El WR Youngstown State FCS 86 3 18 rec · 229 yds · 4 TD
#25 Fredd Adams DB Tarleton State FCS 86 3 21 tkl · 5 PD
#28 Jeremiah Young DL Incarnate Word FCS 86 2 7 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#16 Wyatt Ward LB Wofford FCS 86 3 28 tkl · 2.5 TFL
#17 Sam Milligan WR Bucknell FCS 86 3 24 rec · 241 yds · 3 TD
#29 Cayden Adkins DL North Alabama FCS 86 3 11 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#27 Danny Simms DB Merrimack FCS 86 3 22 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#4 Tristan Alvano K South Dakota State FCS 86 3 6 FG · 17 XP · 35 pts
#17 Sam Oppenheimer LB Maine FCS 86 3 32 tkl · 1.0 TFL
#30 Asher Wilson DL Robert Morris FCS 86 3 14 tkl · 2.5 sacks · 4.5 TFL
#18 Samuel Gbatu Jr. WR UC Davis FCS 85 3 22 rec · 296 yds · 3 TD
#3 Max Pelham P South Dakota State FCS 85 3 10 punts · 47.9 yd avg
#32 Camden Byrd DL Richmond FCS 85 3 7 tkl · 3.5 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#19 Marquis Buchanan WR Rhode Island FCS 85 3 20 rec · 234 yds · 3 TD
#30 Jamarion Ravenell DB Gardner-Webb FCS 85 3 14 tkl · 2 PD

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. Kickers and punters are graded on volume-light stats and are the least reliable.

Why there is no offensive line. College football publishes no individual OL box stats anywhere, so the only OL number we could build is the team’s offensive rating stamped on a lineman — and a lineman only reaches the ratings at all by recording a stray stat, like falling on a fumble. In 2026 that came to 134 linemen across 106 of 289 teams — so 63% of teams would have none, and the rest one or two of five starters, picked by accident. Ranking that would rank offenses with a lineman’s name attached, so we don’t publish it as a position. A team’s own page still shows those rows, flagged, where the claim is only about that team.