Player ratings 2026 season

Pos rankPlayerPos School Grade G2026 season
#2 Khalid Bueno DL Stony Brook FCS 99 3 21 tkl · 4.5 sacks · 8.5 TFL
#12 Zarion Walters DL North Carolina Central FCS 90 3 17 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 6.0 TFL
#14 Trehsyn Fesili DL Idaho State FCS 90 3 20 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#15 Ibrahim Sanogo DL Southern Illinois FCS 89 2 11 tkl · 3.5 sacks · 5.5 TFL
#20 Avery Howard DL North Alabama FCS 88 3 17 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 5.0 TFL
#24 Chris Bacon DL Maine FCS 87 3 8 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#28 Jeremiah Young DL Incarnate Word FCS 86 2 7 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#29 Cayden Adkins DL North Alabama FCS 86 3 11 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#30 Asher Wilson DL Robert Morris FCS 86 3 14 tkl · 2.5 sacks · 4.5 TFL
#32 Camden Byrd DL Richmond FCS 85 3 7 tkl · 3.5 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#37 Nathaniel McDonald DL William & Mary FCS 84 3 8 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#40 Ben Voigtlaender DL Eastern Washington FCS 84 3 14 tkl · 2.5 TFL
#44 Collin Lewis DL Idaho State FCS 83 3 10 tkl · 0.5 TFL
#46 Hudson Tucker DL Tennessee Tech FCS 83 3 10 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#48 Shawan Lewis DL UAlbany FCS 83 3 10 tkl · 3.5 sacks · 4.5 TFL
#50 Jordan Dollard DL South Carolina State FCS 83 3 11 tkl · 2.5 sacks · 5.5 TFL
#53 RJ Staten DL McNeese FCS 82 2 11 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#54 Kylon Roberts DL Alabama A&M FCS 82 3 17 tkl · 2.5 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#55 Demoris Jenkins DL Austin Peay FCS 82 3 8 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 1.5 TFL
#65 Kaleb Harris DL Indiana State FCS 81 3 12 tkl · 3.5 TFL
#67 Jayden Walker DL Murray State FCS 81 3 18 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#70 Donovan Moyer DL Morgan State FCS 80 3 11 tkl · 4.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#72 Timothy Maxson DL Southeast Missouri State FCS 80 3 12 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#75 Derick Simon Jr. DL Arkansas-Pine Bluff FCS 80 3 19 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 2.5 TFL
#76 Hudson Page DL Abilene Christian FCS 80 3 15 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#77 Tyson Shivers DL Drake FCS 80 2 10 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#78 Chris Wilson DL UT Martin FCS 80 3 14 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#82 Ugo Nwotite DL Villanova FCS 80 3 6 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#85 Jaden Few DL UC Davis FCS 79 3 13 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.5 TFL
#86 Duncan Parham DL East Texas A&M FCS 79 3 12 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#88 Daniel Sellers DL Richmond FCS 79 3 7 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#90 Kortlin Rausaw DL Abilene Christian FCS 79 3 21 tkl · 1.0 TFL
#101 Ka Von Chisolm DL South Carolina State FCS 78 3 7 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 5.5 TFL
#102 Alex Villavaso DL Nicholls FCS 78 3 9 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#103 Myles Amey DL Southern Utah FCS 78 3 9 tkl · 2.5 sacks · 3.5 TFL
#107 Case Mankins DL Rhode Island FCS 78 2 6 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#106 Jordan Pigram DL Northern Arizona FCS 78 3 8 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#112 Aiden Hall DL Southern Utah FCS 78 3 6 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 2.5 TFL
#113 Arenza Davis DL Alabama A&M FCS 77 3 12 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.5 TFL
#114 Brody Thornton DL North Dakota FCS 77 3 8 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#115 Jordan Caldwell DL Marist FCS 77 1 1 tkl
#119 Ckelby Givens DL Southern FCS 77 2 6 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#120 Jayden Fuller DL South Carolina State FCS 77 2 6 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#122 Dominic Butts DL Northern Colorado FCS 77 3 10 tkl · 4.0 TFL
#124 Justin Garza DL Campbell FCS 77 2 7 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#126 Christian Sampson DL Southern Utah FCS 77 3 13 tkl · 1.5 TFL
#125 Lorenzo Riddick DL Fordham FCS 77 3 9 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#129 Jakobe Shell DL Central Arkansas FCS 76 3 9 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.5 TFL
#133 Kelton McCaslin DL North Dakota State FCS 76 2 6 tkl · 2.5 sacks · 3.5 TFL
#134 Jyheam Ingram DL North Alabama FCS 76 3 12 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 2.0 TFL

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.