Data Disrespect

The numbers do not care about your team

Rankings

College Top 50

Composite rating — projected points per game against an average FBS opponent

Week 3

1Ohio StateOff 4 · Def 1+29.2
2GeorgiaOff 2 · Def 5+28.2
3IndianaOff 7 · Def 3+26.3
4Notre DameOff 5 · Def 6+26.1
5MiamiOff 8 · Def 8+23.2
6OregonOff 6 · Def 12+23.0
7TexasOff 9 · Def 10+22.7
8LSUOff 28 · Def 4+19.8
9USCOff 1 · Def 40+19.6
10TennesseeOff 3 · Def 34+19.4
11AlabamaOff 20 · Def 9+18.8
12Penn StateOff 13 · Def 13+18.4
13FloridaOff 19 · Def 15+17.6
14Texas TechOff 16 · Def 20+17.1
15BYUOff 12 · Def 17+16.8
16OklahomaOff 53 · Def 2+16.5
17Texas A&MOff 14 · Def 18+16.3
18IowaOff 38 · Def 7+16.1
19UtahOff 15 · Def 19+15.8
20Ole MissOff 10 · Def 49+14.8
21MichiganOff 43 · Def 11+14.1
22MissouriOff 33 · Def 14+13.7
23Kansas StateOff 18 · Def 29+12.9
24NebraskaOff 21 · Def 26+12.6
25LouisvilleOff 17 · Def 44+12.3
26WashingtonOff 44 · Def 16+12.0
27South CarolinaOff 31 · Def 28+11.9
28Mississippi StateOff 11 · Def 57+11.9
29Virginia TechOff 22 · Def 37+11.3
30SMUOff 24 · Def 46+10.6
31AuburnOff 54 · Def 22+10.0
32HoustonOff 23 · Def 50+9.9
33VirginiaOff 50 · Def 23+9.6
34TCUOff 36 · Def 27+9.2
35IllinoisOff 25 · Def 52+8.8
36PittsburghOff 41 · Def 33+8.5
37North Dakota StateOff 48 · Def 24+8.4
38VanderbiltOff 30 · Def 54+7.9
39UCLAOff 27 · Def 55+7.8
40ArizonaOff 33 · Def 43+7.7
41MarylandOff 45 · Def 47+6.9
42NorthwesternOff 59 · Def 30+6.7
43Oklahoma StateOff 47 · Def 48+6.3
44CincinnatiOff 29 · Def 62+6.3
45James MadisonOff 51 · Def 38+6.1
46Boise StateOff 37 · Def 59+5.4
47DukeOff 32 · Def 63+5.2
48BaylorOff 39 · Def 61+4.9
49Iowa StateOff 76 · Def 25+4.8
50KentuckyOff 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.

All 138 teams

College QBs

Grade through Week 3 — zero is the national average

Week 3

1Darian MensahMiami · Tier S · trending down · last: Wake Forest (Average)2.35
2Jayden MaiavaUSC · Tier S · trending down · last: Rutgers (Weak)2.07
3Aaron PhiloFlorida · Tier S · steady · last: Auburn (Tough)2.07
4Josh HooverIndiana · Tier S · trending down · last: Western Kentucky (Weak)2.02
5Gunner StocktonGeorgia · Tier S · trending down · last: Arkansas (Weak)1.87
6Ryan BrownePurdue · Tier S · trending up · last: UCLA (Average)1.85
7Ethan GrunkemeyerVirginia Tech · Tier S · steady · last: Maryland (Average)1.60
8Aidan ChilesNorthwestern · Tier S · trending up · last: Colorado (Average)1.50
9Conner WeigmanHouston · Tier S · trending down · last: Texas Tech (Tough)1.47
10Bear BachmeierBYU · Tier S · trending up · last: Colorado State (Average)1.46
11C.J. CarrNotre Dame · Tier S · trending down · last: Michigan State (Average)1.39
12Katin HouserIllinois · Tier S · trending up · last: Southern Illinois (unrated)1.29
13Kevin JenningsSMU · Tier S · trending down · last: Louisville (Tough)1.25
14Lincoln KienholzLouisville · Tier S · steady · last: SMU (Average)1.25
15Cutter BoleyArizona State · Tier S · trending down · last: Kansas (Average)1.19
16Devon DampierUtah · Tier A · trending down · last: Utah State (Weak)1.14
17Malachi SingletonApp State · Tier A · trending down · last: Charlotte (Weak)1.09
18David McCombMiami (OH) · Tier A · trending down · last: Cincinnati (Average)1.07
19Austin SimmonsMissouri · Tier A · trending down · last: Troy (Average)1.05
20Marcus StokesMemphis · Tier A · trending up · last: UT Martin (unrated)1.00
21Keelon RussellAlabama · Tier A · trending up · last: Florida State (Average)0.99
22Avery JohnsonKansas State · Tier A · steady · last: Tulane (Average)0.98
23Kenny MincheyKentucky · Tier A · trending up · last: Texas A&M (Tough)0.98
24Julian SayinOhio State · Tier A · trending down · last: Kent State (Weak)0.96
25Rocco 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.

Full table