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
#1 Blake Fletcher LB Air Force FBS 99 2 21 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 1.5 TFL
#2 Alonzo Jackson Jr. LB Louisiana Tech FBS 97 2 16 tkl · 3.0 sacks · 5.0 TFL
#3 Anthony Palano LB Boston College FBS 95 2 22 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#4 Elijah Melendez LB Auburn FBS 94 2 18 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#5 Andrew Osmun LB Fordham FCS 92 3 29 tkl · 1.5 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#6 Zach Mowchan LB Eastern Michigan FBS 91 3 30 tkl · 2.0 TFL
#7 Nick Rinaldi LB Vanderbilt FBS 90 2 13 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#8 Aiden Sullivan LB Oregon State FBS 90 2 19 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#9 Omari Bursey LB Villanova FCS 89 3 34 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 4.5 TFL
#10 Dylan Lee LB San José State FBS 89 3 24 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.5 TFL
#11 Tre Yanez LB Gardner-Webb FCS 88 3 31 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 5.0 TFL
#12 Zach Ruffin LB Memphis FBS 88 3 24 tkl · 1.5 TFL
#13 EJ Smith LB Nevada FBS 87 2 24 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#14 Isaac Zay LB Toledo FBS 87 2 19 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 1.0 TFL
#15 Rolijah Hardy LB Indiana FBS 86 2 12 tkl · 1.0 TFL
#16 Wyatt Ward LB Wofford FCS 86 3 28 tkl · 2.5 TFL
#17 Sam Oppenheimer LB Maine FCS 86 3 32 tkl · 1.0 TFL
#18 Ethan Stuhlsatz LB Wyoming FBS 85 2 26 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 1.0 TFL
#19 Zyion Brown LB The Citadel FCS 85 3 28 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 3.5 TFL
#20 Christian Magliacano LB Colgate FCS 85 3 20 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#21 Trevor Barry LB New Hampshire FCS 84 3 39 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#22 Naseri Danielson LB San José State FBS 84 3 22 tkl
#23 Rafael Fasolino LB Long Island University FCS 84 3 25 tkl · 3.0 TFL
#24 Kyle Efford LB Georgia Tech FBS 84 2 21 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 1.0 TFL
#25 Jayven Anderson LB Houston Christian FCS 83 3 21 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 7.0 TFL
#26 Sammy Omosigho LB UCLA FBS 83 2 19 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 4.0 TFL
#27 Mikey D'Amato LB Cal Poly FCS 83 3 36 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#28 Ben Fiegel LB Southern Illinois FCS 83 2 22 tkl · 4.5 TFL
#29 Moses Meus LB Rhode Island FCS 82 3 16 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 1.5 TFL
#30 Yhonzae Pierre LB Alabama FBS 82 2 4 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 1.0 TFL
#31 Jalen Woods LB UCLA FBS 82 2 20 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 1.5 TFL
#32 Nathan Reynolds LB Idaho State FCS 82 3 33 tkl · 3.0 TFL
#33 Myles Mayovsky LB Eastern Washington FCS 82 3 33 tkl · 1.0 TFL
#34 Boen Phelps LB Boise State FBS 82 2 16 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.5 TFL
#35 Luke Metz LB Alabama FBS 81 2 10 tkl
#36 Ja'Wuan Nickson LB Eastern Illinois FCS 81 3 21 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 4.5 TFL
#37 J.R. Flood LB Drake FCS 81 3 35 tkl · 0.5 TFL
#38 Devon Jackson LB Oregon FBS 81 2 12 tkl
#39 Jared Lloyd LB Missouri State FBS 81 2 19 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#40 Amanuel Dickson LB Robert Morris FCS 80 3 23 tkl · 3.5 TFL
#41 Dorian Pringle LB Bowling Green FBS 80 2 23 tkl · 1.5 TFL
#42 Cam Jessee LB Eastern Kentucky FCS 80 3 23 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 2.5 TFL
#43 Jaiden Letua LB Northern Arizona FCS 80 3 25 tkl · 1.0 TFL
#44 Blake Houser LB Richmond FCS 80 3 26 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#45 Ismael Kante LB Illinois FBS 80 2 10 tkl · 0.5 TFL
#46 Colin Gallagher LB Delaware FBS 80 2 13 tkl · 2.0 sacks · 3.0 TFL
#47 Jashawn Nelson LB Northern Illinois FBS 79 2 19 tkl · 0.5 sacks · 1.5 TFL
#48 Tony Rojas LB Penn State FBS 79 2 14 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.0 TFL
#49 Vincent Firenze LB Wake Forest FBS 79 2 20 tkl · 2.0 TFL
#50 Robert Stevens LB Arkansas State FBS 79 2 15 tkl · 1.0 sacks · 2.5 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.