Rankings
College Top 50
Composite rating — projected points per game against an average FBS opponent
Week 3
| 1 | Ohio StateOff 4 · Def 1 | +29.2 |
| 2 | GeorgiaOff 2 · Def 5 | +28.2 |
| 3 | IndianaOff 7 · Def 3 | +26.3 |
| 4 | Notre DameOff 5 · Def 6 | +26.1 |
| 5 | MiamiOff 8 · Def 8 | +23.2 |
| 6 | OregonOff 6 · Def 12 | +23.0 |
| 7 | TexasOff 9 · Def 10 | +22.7 |
| 8 | LSUOff 28 · Def 4 | +19.8 |
| 9 | USCOff 1 · Def 40 | +19.6 |
| 10 | TennesseeOff 3 · Def 34 | +19.4 |
| 11 | AlabamaOff 20 · Def 9 | +18.8 |
| 12 | Penn StateOff 13 · Def 13 | +18.4 |
| 13 | FloridaOff 19 · Def 15 | +17.6 |
| 14 | Texas TechOff 16 · Def 20 | +17.1 |
| 15 | BYUOff 12 · Def 17 | +16.8 |
| 16 | OklahomaOff 53 · Def 2 | +16.5 |
| 17 | Texas A&MOff 14 · Def 18 | +16.3 |
| 18 | IowaOff 38 · Def 7 | +16.1 |
| 19 | UtahOff 15 · Def 19 | +15.8 |
| 20 | Ole MissOff 10 · Def 49 | +14.8 |
| 21 | MichiganOff 43 · Def 11 | +14.1 |
| 22 | MissouriOff 33 · Def 14 | +13.7 |
| 23 | Kansas StateOff 18 · Def 29 | +12.9 |
| 24 | NebraskaOff 21 · Def 26 | +12.6 |
| 25 | LouisvilleOff 17 · Def 44 | +12.3 |
| 26 | WashingtonOff 44 · Def 16 | +12.0 |
| 27 | South CarolinaOff 31 · Def 28 | +11.9 |
| 28 | Mississippi StateOff 11 · Def 57 | +11.9 |
| 29 | Virginia TechOff 22 · Def 37 | +11.3 |
| 30 | SMUOff 24 · Def 46 | +10.6 |
| 31 | AuburnOff 54 · Def 22 | +10.0 |
| 32 | HoustonOff 23 · Def 50 | +9.9 |
| 33 | VirginiaOff 50 · Def 23 | +9.6 |
| 34 | TCUOff 36 · Def 27 | +9.2 |
| 35 | IllinoisOff 25 · Def 52 | +8.8 |
| 36 | PittsburghOff 41 · Def 33 | +8.5 |
| 37 | North Dakota StateOff 48 · Def 24 | +8.4 |
| 38 | VanderbiltOff 30 · Def 54 | +7.9 |
| 39 | UCLAOff 27 · Def 55 | +7.8 |
| 40 | ArizonaOff 33 · Def 43 | +7.7 |
| 41 | MarylandOff 45 · Def 47 | +6.9 |
| 42 | NorthwesternOff 59 · Def 30 | +6.7 |
| 43 | Oklahoma StateOff 47 · Def 48 | +6.3 |
| 44 | CincinnatiOff 29 · Def 62 | +6.3 |
| 45 | James MadisonOff 51 · Def 38 | +6.1 |
| 46 | Boise StateOff 37 · Def 59 | +5.4 |
| 47 | DukeOff 32 · Def 63 | +5.2 |
| 48 | BaylorOff 39 · Def 61 | +4.9 |
| 49 | Iowa StateOff 76 · Def 25 | +4.8 |
| 50 | KentuckyOff 57 · Def 45 | +4.6 |
Week 3, 2026 season (games through Sept 19, 2026) — corrected composite build.
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, and an earlier version of this board leaned on them far too hard — a single blowout of a bad opponent, or an unremarkable preseason win total, was enough to carry a team thirty spots higher than its play deserved. That is fixed. 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 +29.2 is a four-touchdown favorite against average and −27.3 is 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.
College QBs
Grade through Week 3 — zero is the national average
Week 3
| 1 | Darian MensahMiami · Tier S · trending down · last: Wake Forest (Average) | 2.35 |
| 2 | Jayden MaiavaUSC · Tier S · trending down · last: Rutgers (Weak) | 2.07 |
| 3 | Aaron PhiloFlorida · Tier S · steady · last: Auburn (Tough) | 2.07 |
| 4 | Josh HooverIndiana · Tier S · trending down · last: Western Kentucky (Weak) | 2.02 |
| 5 | Gunner StocktonGeorgia · Tier S · trending down · last: Arkansas (Weak) | 1.87 |
| 6 | Ryan BrownePurdue · Tier S · trending up · last: UCLA (Average) | 1.85 |
| 7 | Ethan GrunkemeyerVirginia Tech · Tier S · steady · last: Maryland (Average) | 1.60 |
| 8 | Aidan ChilesNorthwestern · Tier S · trending up · last: Colorado (Average) | 1.50 |
| 9 | Conner WeigmanHouston · Tier S · trending down · last: Texas Tech (Tough) | 1.47 |
| 10 | Bear BachmeierBYU · Tier S · trending up · last: Colorado State (Average) | 1.46 |
| 11 | C.J. CarrNotre Dame · Tier S · trending down · last: Michigan State (Average) | 1.39 |
| 12 | Katin HouserIllinois · Tier S · trending up · last: Southern Illinois (unrated) | 1.29 |
| 13 | Kevin JenningsSMU · Tier S · trending down · last: Louisville (Tough) | 1.25 |
| 14 | Lincoln KienholzLouisville · Tier S · steady · last: SMU (Average) | 1.25 |
| 15 | Cutter BoleyArizona State · Tier S · trending down · last: Kansas (Average) | 1.19 |
| 16 | Devon DampierUtah · Tier A · trending down · last: Utah State (Weak) | 1.14 |
| 17 | Malachi SingletonApp State · Tier A · trending down · last: Charlotte (Weak) | 1.09 |
| 18 | David McCombMiami (OH) · Tier A · trending down · last: Cincinnati (Average) | 1.07 |
| 19 | Austin SimmonsMissouri · Tier A · trending down · last: Troy (Average) | 1.05 |
| 20 | Marcus StokesMemphis · Tier A · trending up · last: UT Martin (unrated) | 1.00 |
| 21 | Keelon RussellAlabama · Tier A · trending up · last: Florida State (Average) | 0.99 |
| 22 | Avery JohnsonKansas State · Tier A · steady · last: Tulane (Average) | 0.98 |
| 23 | Kenny MincheyKentucky · Tier A · trending up · last: Texas A&M (Tough) | 0.98 |
| 24 | Julian SayinOhio State · Tier A · trending down · last: Kent State (Weak) | 0.96 |
| 25 | Rocco BechtPenn State · Tier A · trending down · last: Buffalo (Weak) | 0.93 |
Through Week 3, 2026 season. New this week: the grade now adjusts for how good the defense actually was. Beat a bad defense and the game counts for a bit less; beat a good one and it counts for more. That is a real change to the number, not a relabelling — several quarterbacks moved ten places or more, and the three who fell furthest had all just played weak defenses.
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. Early-season numbers are 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. Two quarterbacks faced opponents 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. Garbage time is stripped out. 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 three games is still a small sample.