Player ratings 2026 season

Pos rankPlayerPos School Grade G2026 season
#3 Joshua Acord TE Southern Utah FCS 90 2 11 rec · 128 yds · 3 TD
#7 Tanner Beaman TE Portland State FCS 85 3 16 rec · 157 yds · 1 TD
#11 Brady McCullough TE Northern Iowa FCS 82 2 7 rec · 98 yds · 3 TD
#12 Davin Driskell TE Lamar FCS 81 3 10 rec · 99 yds · 3 TD
#14 Keiden Gutierrez TE Stony Brook FCS 80 2 10 rec · 102 yds · 2 TD
#19 Donovan Weatherly TE Dayton FCS 78 2 8 rec · 110 yds · 2 TD
#20 Jeter Purdy TE Northern Arizona FCS 78 2 8 rec · 126 yds · 1 TD
#22 Charlie Browder TE East Tennessee State FCS 77 3 11 rec · 137 yds · 1 TD
#24 Lonnie Shinn TE SE Louisiana FCS 77 2 6 rec · 73 yds · 2 TD
#26 Cole Clarke TE Stonehill FCS 76 3 11 rec · 169 yds · 1 TD
#29 Anthony Rucker TE North Carolina A&T FCS 75 3 7 rec · 115 yds · 2 TD
#33 Sean Clarke TE Richmond FCS 74 3 12 rec · 97 yds · 1 TD
#36 Greyton Gannon TE South Dakota State FCS 74 2 5 rec · 81 yds · 2 TD
#40 Bode Burns TE Western Carolina FCS 73 3 10 rec · 99 yds · 1 TD
#41 Reis Kessel TE North Dakota State FCS 73 3 9 rec · 90 yds · 1 TD
#43 Alex Herrera TE Illinois State FCS 72 2 4 rec · 49 yds · 2 TD
#44 Camden Lewis TE Mercyhurst FCS 72 3 10 rec · 83 yds · 1 TD
#48 Drae Tyme TE Holy Cross FCS 71 2 4 rec · 81 yds · 1 TD
#51 Jack Perozek TE Davidson FCS 71 2 7 rec · 62 yds · 1 TD
#53 Jaylen King TE Mississippi Valley State FCS 71 3 12 rec · 85 yds · 1 TD
#56 Gerard Edimo TE Stephen F. Austin FCS 70 3 6 rec · 89 yds · 1 TD
#57 Travon Jones TE Prairie View A&M FCS 70 3 7 rec · 49 yds · 2 TD
#63 Alek Marshall TE Cal Poly FCS 69 2 7 rec · 43 yds · 1 TD
#65 Nathanial Clark TE Howard FCS 69 3 10 rec · 56 yds · 1 TD
#66 Ammon Munyer TE Weber State FCS 69 2 5 rec · 120 yds
#71 Mason South TE North Dakota FCS 68 2 3 rec · 19 yds · 2 TD
#77 Rocky Lencioni TE Montana State FCS 67 3 7 rec · 100 yds
#80 Klein Essler TE Tarleton State FCS 67 1 3 rec · 31 yds · 1 TD
#85 Marcus Middleton TE Monmouth FCS 66 2 7 rec · 54 yds
#87 Max Welter TE Youngstown State FCS 66 1 1 rec · 54 yds · 1 TD
#88 Donovan Price TE Alabama A&M FCS 66 2 4 rec · 51 yds · 1 TD
#90 Jesse Miller TE South Dakota FCS 66 3 6 rec · 62 yds · 1 TD
#99 Patrick Wagner TE St. Thomas-Minnesota FCS 65 2 3 rec · 37 yds · 1 TD
#102 Dylan Magazu TE Elon FCS 65 3 6 rec · 98 yds
#104 Nassim Isaac TE Northern Arizona FCS 64 2 2 rec · 39 yds · 1 TD
#109 Connie Hewitt II TE UT Martin FCS 64 2 5 rec · 84 yds
#110 Nicolas Brown TE South Carolina State FCS 64 3 6 rec · 61 yds · 1 TD
#113 Brady Ambrose TE Campbell FCS 64 2 3 rec · 52 yds · 1 TD
#114 Jake Young TE Western Carolina FCS 64 2 6 rec · 52 yds
#115 Itty Henry TE Abilene Christian FCS 64 3 5 rec · 20 yds · 1 TD
#121 Coleman Kuntz TE South Dakota State FCS 63 2 3 rec · 38 yds · 1 TD
#125 Noah West-Baranco TE Idaho FCS 63 3 5 rec · 76 yds
#127 Carter Pruitt TE San Diego FCS 62 1 4 rec · 50 yds
#128 Edward Khutsishvili TE UC Davis FCS 62 3 4 rec · 60 yds · 1 TD
#132 Greg Genross TE Monmouth FCS 62 2 5 rec · 60 yds
#133 Nathan Hromadka TE North Dakota FCS 62 2 3 rec · 29 yds · 1 TD
#138 Isaiah Pina TE Southern FCS 62 1 2 rec · 28 yds · 1 TD
#139 Jency Riley Jr. TE Jackson State FCS 61 2 3 rec · 38 yds · 1 TD
#140 Cedric Lott Jr. TE Incarnate Word FCS 61 2 3 rec · 32 yds · 1 TD
#142 Josh Schuchts TE West Georgia FCS 61 3 5 rec · 78 yds

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.