College Football Rankings
College Top 50
Composite rating — projected points per game against an average FBS opponent
Week 9
| 1 |  GeorgiaOff 4 · Def 2 · Eff 8 | +27.8 | ▲ 1 |
| 2 |  Notre DameOff 2 · Def 9 · Eff 2 | +25.7 | ▲ 1 |
| 3 |  Ohio StateOff 8 · Def 3 · Eff 7 | +25.6 | ▼ 2 |
| 4 |  LSUOff 5 · Def 5 · Eff 3 | +24.7 | ▲ 1 |
| 5 |  MiamiOff 1 · Def 25 · Eff 3 | +24.5 | ▼ 1 |
| 6 |  IndianaOff 26 · Def 1 · Eff 3 | +22.6 | — |
| 7 |  AlabamaOff 10 · Def 17 · Eff 10 | +20.9 | — |
| 8 |  TexasOff 27 · Def 6 · Eff 54 | +20.7 | — |
| 9 |  UtahOff 7 · Def 22 · Eff 11 | +19.6 | — |
| 10 |  UCLAOff 36 · Def 7 · Eff 1 | +17.2 | ▲ 4 |
| 11 |  TennesseeOff 23 · Def 18 · Eff 21 | +17.0 | — |
| 12 |  Texas TechOff 12 · Def 23 · Eff 27 | +16.9 | ▼ 2 |
| 13 |  Ole MissOff 6 · Def 39 · Eff 49 | +16.5 | ▲ 4 |
| 14 |  BYUOff 25 · Def 20 · Eff 25 | +15.8 | ▼ 2 |
| 15 |  Wake ForestOff 16 · Def 29 · Eff 6 | +15.7 | ▲ 5 |
| 16 |  OregonOff 28 · Def 19 · Eff 45 | +14.3 | — |
| 17 |  NebraskaOff 44 · Def 11 · Eff 20 | +14.3 | ▼ 2 |
| 18 |  MissouriOff 39 · Def 14 · Eff 36 | +14.0 | ▲ 1 |
| 19 |  ArizonaOff 18 · Def 30 · Eff 16 | +13.9 | ▼ 6 |
| 20 |  LibertyOff 42 · Def 24 · Eff 11 | +13.8 | ▲ 10 |
| 21 |  USCOff 11 · Def 40 · Eff 57 | +13.5 | ▲ 1 |
| 22 |  IowaOff 59 · Def 8 · Eff 43 | +12.9 | ▲ 3 |
| 23 |  NorthwesternOff 24 · Def 32 · Eff 13 | +12.6 | ▼ 5 |
| 24 |  LouisvilleOff 3 · Def 58 · Eff 13 | +12.4 | ▲ 5 |
| 25 |  SMUOff 21 · Def 37 · Eff 27 | +12.1 | ▼ 4 |
| 26 |  HoustonOff 13 · Def 48 · Eff 31 | +11.1 | ▼ 3 |
| 27 |  Oklahoma StateOff 9 · Def 71 · Eff 51 | +10.7 | ▼ 3 |
| 28 |  Boise StateOff 14 · Def 56 · Eff 18 | +10.7 | ▼ 1 |
| 29 |  South CarolinaOff 20 · Def 43 · Eff 57 | +10.5 | ▲ 6 |
| 30 |  KentuckyOff 29 · Def 38 · Eff 32 | +10.3 | ▼ 2 |
| 31 |  BaylorOff 51 · Def 21 · Eff 23 | +9.3 | ▲ 12 |
| 32 |  New MexicoOff 65 · Def 10 · Eff 13 | +9.2 | ▲ 5 |
| 33 |  MichiganOff 90 · Def 4 · Eff 32 | +9.1 | ▲ 1 |
| 34 |  Penn StateOff 53 · Def 27 · Eff 54 | +9.1 | ▲ 2 |
| 35 |  James MadisonOff 34 · Def 33 · Eff 18 | +8.9 | ▼ 3 |
| 36 |  WashingtonOff 58 · Def 26 · Eff 41 | +8.7 | ▼ 3 |
| 37 |  FloridaOff 33 · Def 46 · Eff 32 | +8.7 | ▼ 11 |
| 38 |  North Dakota StateOff 76 · Def 12 · Eff 23 | +8.2 | ▲ 2 |
| 39 |  DukeOff 38 · Def 36 · Eff 9 | +8.1 | ▲ 8 |
| 40 |  Texas A&MOff 49 · Def 34 · Eff 64 | +7.5 | ▼ 1 |
| 41 |  PittsburghOff 48 · Def 35 · Eff 41 | +7.2 | ▲ 4 |
| 42 |  MemphisOff 17 · Def 70 · Eff 40 | +6.9 | ▲ 8 |
| 43 |  TCUOff 86 · Def 13 · Eff 27 | +6.7 | ▼ 1 |
| 44 |  Virginia TechOff 37 · Def 41 · Eff 36 | +6.6 | ▼ 3 |
| 45 |  OklahomaOff 98 · Def 15 · Eff 66 | +6.5 | ▼ 14 |
| 46 |  WisconsinOff 99 · Def 16 · Eff 36 | +5.6 | ▼ 8 |
| 47 |  Kansas StateOff 41 · Def 49 · Eff 64 | +5.3 | ▼ 3 |
| 48 |  Fresno StateOff 61 · Def 45 · Eff 63 | +5.1 | NEW |
| 49 |  UTSAOff 35 · Def 85 · Eff 45 | +4.8 | NEW |
| 50 |  ToledoOff 55 · Def 60 · Eff 16 | +4.7 | NEW |
Week 9, 2026 season (games through Nov. 1, 2026) — updated Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026.
One number from three ingredients: an opponent-adjusted efficiency rating, raw per-play production, and the betting market. The adjusted rating does nearly all of the work, because it is the only one of the three that accounts for who a team has actually played. The other two are there to catch what it misses. How the three are weighted is ours, and it is a judgment call rather than a standard.
The number is roughly how many points per game a team projects to beat an average FBS opponent by, so +27.8 is a four-touchdown favorite against average and −25.7 is nearly the same margin the other way. Off and Def are national ranks out of 138 in the on-field offense and defense scores, where 1 is best and the market plays no part, since odds do not split by side of the ball. No AP or Coaches poll touches any of it.
Eff is each team's national rank in season-long points per play, offense minus defense, through Week 9. It is shown for comparison and does not feed the rating.
College QBs
Grade through Week 5 — zero is the national average
Week 5
| 1 | Darian MensahMiami · Tier S · steady · last: Clemson (Tough) | 2.48 | — |
| 2 | Dylan RaiolaOregon · Tier S · steady · last: USC (Average) | 2.32 | — |
| 3 | Josh HooverIndiana · Tier S · trending up · last: Rutgers (Weak) | 2.05 | ▲ 1 |
| 4 | Gunner StocktonGeorgia · Tier S · trending up · last: Vanderbilt (Tough) | 2.02 | ▲ 8 |
| 5 | Julian SayinOhio State · Tier S · trending up · last: Iowa (Tough) | 1.92 | ▲ 4 |
| 6 | Jayden MaiavaUSC · Tier S · trending down · last: Washington (Tough) | 1.92 | ▼ 3 |
| 7 | Keelon RussellAlabama · Tier S · steady · last: Mississippi State (Average) | 1.75 | — |
| 8 | Conner WeigmanHouston · Tier S · trending down · last: UCF (Tough) | 1.69 | ▼ 3 |
| 9 | C.J. CarrNotre Dame · Tier S · trending up · last: North Carolina (Tough) | 1.68 | ▲ 2 |
| 10 | Aaron PhiloFlorida · Tier S · trending down · last: Missouri (Tough) | 1.65 | ▼ 2 |
| 11 | Aidan ChilesNorthwestern · Tier S · trending down · last: Penn State (Tough) | 1.61 | ▼ 5 |
| 12 |  David McCombMiami (OH) · Tier S · trending up · last: UConn (Weak) | 1.51 | ▲ 4 |
| 13 | Austin SimmonsMissouri · Tier S · trending up · last: Florida (Tough) | 1.46 | NEW |
| 14 |  Emory WilliamsEast Carolina · Tier S · trending up · last: North Carolina Central (unrated) | 1.41 | ▲ 3 |
| 15 |  Cameran BrownGeorgia State · Tier S · trending up · last: Old Dominion (Average) | 1.40 | NEW |
| 16 |  Ryan BrownePurdue · Tier S · trending up · last: Illinois (Average) | 1.39 | ▲ 3 |
| 17 | Devon DampierUtah · Tier S · trending up · last: Iowa State (Tough) | 1.37 | ▲ 1 |
| 18 |  Tayven JacksonNorth Texas · Tier S · trending up · last: Tulsa (Average) | 1.37 | ▲ 6 |
| 19 | Marcus StokesMemphis · Tier S · trending up · last: Charlotte (Weak) | 1.22 | ▲ 6 |
| 20 |  Malachi SingletonApp State · Tier S · steady · last: NC State (Average) | 1.22 | — |
| 21 |  Hauss HejnyColorado State · Tier S · steady · last: BYU (Tough) | 1.21 | — |
| 22 | Ethan GrunkemeyerVirginia Tech · Tier S · trending up · last: Pittsburgh (Tough) | 1.18 | NEW |
| 23 |  Brad JacksonTexas State · Tier S · trending down · last: San Diego State (Average) | 1.15 | ▼ 10 |
| 24 |  CJ BaileyNC State · Tier A · trending up · last: Louisville (Average) | 1.14 | NEW |
| 25 |  Cutter BoleyArizona State · Tier A · trending down · last: Baylor (Tough) | 1.09 | ▼ 10 |
Through Week 5, 2026 season — updated Oct. 4, 2026.
The grade blends two things: how many points a quarterback's plays were worth per snap, and how often those plays gained enough to keep the drive on schedule. Efficiency carries the larger share, staying on schedule the rest. Both are measured against the national average, so zero is average and higher is better. Numbers are adjusted for the defense faced, then pulled toward that average in proportion to how little a quarterback has thrown, which is why a hot fifty snaps does not automatically win the board.
The defense listed beside each last game — Tough, Average or Weak — is the same strength measure the adjustment uses, shown so you can see what a number is built on. 1 quarterback on this board last faced an opponent with no rating, shown as unrated.
Completion percentage appears in the full table for color only. It is raw accuracy with no adjustment for how hard the throws were, and it does not feed the grade at all. Passer identity comes from the official play-by-play text checked against the roster, which covers about nine in ten pass plays nationally; the rest were left out rather than guessed at. Tiers are recalculated from scratch every week, and five games is still a small sample.