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 Kingston Lopa DB California FBS 99 2 11 tkl · 4 INT
#1 Alex McLaughlin DB Washington FBS 99 2 15 tkl · 2 PD · 2 INT
#3 Joseph Garcia DB Stony Brook FCS 97 3 34 tkl · 1 INT
#4 Parker Vance DB Southern Utah FCS 96 3 18 tkl · 4 PD · 3 INT
#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
#7 Michael Henderson DB Arkansas-Pine Bluff FCS 93 3 21 tkl · 3 PD · 1 INT
#8 Jaylen Thomas DB Washington State FBS 92 2 7 tkl · 2 INT
#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 Trey Cotton DB UT Martin FCS 90 3 23 tkl · 1 INT
#13 Kona Moore DB Hawai'i FBS 90 3 30 tkl · 2 PD
#14 Andre Jordan Jr. DB Auburn FBS 89 2 5 tkl · 2 PD · 2 INT
#15 Jordan McRae DB Louisiana Tech FBS 89 2 12 tkl · 1 INT
#16 Ta'Shawn James DB UCLA FBS 88 2 13 tkl · 1 PD · 2 INT
#17 Timothy Jasper DB Alcorn State FCS 88 3 31 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#18 Caleb Nix DB Jacksonville State FBS 88 3 18 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#19 Nick Session DB New Mexico State FBS 88 3 21 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#20 DJ Delmore DB Southeast Missouri State FCS 87 3 22 tkl · 2 PD
#21 CJ Heard DB Vanderbilt FBS 87 2 14 tkl · 1 PD
#22 Jordan Castell DB Kentucky FBS 87 2 16 tkl · 1 INT
#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
#25 Fredd Adams DB Tarleton State FCS 86 3 21 tkl · 5 PD
#26 Ryan Nolan DB Texas State FBS 86 2 17 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#27 Danny Simms DB Merrimack FCS 86 3 22 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#28 Tre Fulton DB UNLV FBS 86 3 21 tkl · 1 PD
#29 Kal-El Pascal DB Bowling Green FBS 85 2 22 tkl · 1 PD
#30 Jamarion Ravenell DB Gardner-Webb FCS 85 3 14 tkl · 2 PD
#31 Jaeden Jones DB Monmouth FCS 85 3 33 tkl
#32 Ashlynd Barker DB Florida State FBS 85 2 15 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#33 Deliyon Freeman DB Northern Arizona FCS 84 3 23 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#34 Justin Johnson DB Fordham FCS 84 3 13 tkl · 1 PD · 1 INT
#35 Dejuan Lane DB Tennessee FBS 84 2 4 tkl · 2 PD · 1 INT
#36 Kamrin Canterbury DB Prairie View A&M FCS 84 3 27 tkl · 2 PD
#37 Javeon Wilcox DB Abilene Christian FCS 84 3 27 tkl · 1 INT
#38 Don Saunders DB Purdue FBS 84 2 10 tkl · 1 INT
#39 Tramar Gilbert DB East Texas A&M FCS 84 3 23 tkl · 1 PD
#40 Jeremiah Jimoh DB Utah Tech FCS 83 3 19 tkl · 3 PD
#41 Jason Marshall DB Eastern Michigan FBS 83 3 20 tkl · 2 PD · 1 INT
#42 Jahmad Harmon DB Massachusetts FBS 83 2 3 tkl · 3 INT
#43 Jahaad Fort DB Northern Arizona FCS 83 3 16 tkl · 2 PD · 2 INT
#44 Justin Bostic DB Florida A&M FCS 83 3 10 tkl · 2 INT
#45 Quincy Lejay DB Utah Tech FCS 83 3 22 tkl · 1 PD
#46 Caleb Womack DB San José State FBS 83 3 25 tkl · 1 INT
#47 Jack Oliver DB Illinois State FCS 82 2 6 tkl · 2 PD · 1 INT
#48 Makai Frisby DB Stephen F. Austin FCS 82 3 8 tkl · 3 INT
#49 Collin Gill DB Charlotte FBS 82 2 16 tkl
#50 Caleb Clark-Glover DB Marshall FBS 82 2 20 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.