Position-U · Career-credit methodology
Tight End Position-U Rankings
Stars2Stats ranks programs by the production, development beyond recruiting expectations, consistency, and elite outcomes of their eligible tight end signees from the published 2004–2016 recruiting classes.
2004–2016 recruiting classes · 99 ranked programs · Data through 2026-08-16
What the score measures
Stars2Stats evaluates tight end outcomes associated with each program’s recruited players. Only tight end recruiting labels are included. H-back and unresolved tight end hybrids are excluded, so tight end carries a higher provisional share than other groups. Confidence is separate from rank. Earnings do not determine the headline score.
Production · 35%
Total demonstrated outcomes from eligible tight end signees.
Development · 35%
How outcomes compared with recruiting expectations.
Consistency · 20%
How often a program produced positive outcomes across recruiting classes.
Elite Ceiling · 10%
Capped credit for the highest-level outcomes.
Rankings
Official ranks come from the Position-U snapshot. Scores are normalized within the eligible tight end ranking population.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Prov.
- 54
- 55
- Prov.
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Prov.
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Prov.
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- Prov.
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- Prov.
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- Prov.
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- Prov.
- 107
| Official rank | Program | Overall | Production | Development | Sample | Confidence | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 20 | High confidence | ||
| 2 | 2.0 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 19 | Medium confidence | ||
| 3 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 4 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 24 | High confidence | ||
| 5 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 19 | Medium confidence | ||
| 6 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 19 | High confidence | ||
| 7 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 16 | High confidence | ||
| 8 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 15 | High confidence | ||
| 9 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 17 | High confidence | ||
| 10 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 3.1 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| 11 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 21 | High confidence | ||
| 12 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 25 | High confidence | ||
| 13 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 20 | High confidence | ||
| 14 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| 15 | 0.9 | 1.9 | -0.1 | 17 | Medium confidence | ||
| 16 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 21 | High confidence | ||
| 17 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 19 | High confidence | ||
| 18 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 18 | Medium confidence | ||
| 19 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 20 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 21 | High confidence | ||
| 21 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 18 | Medium confidence | ||
| 22 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 22 | High confidence | ||
| 23 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 21 | Medium confidence | ||
| 24 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 25 | 0.7 | 1.2 | -0.2 | 21 | High confidence | ||
| 26 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 16 | Medium confidence | ||
| 27 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 19 | High confidence | ||
| 28 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 18 | High confidence | ||
| 29 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 21 | High confidence | ||
| 30 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 20 | Medium confidence | ||
| 31 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 20 | High confidence | ||
| 32 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| 33 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 23 | High confidence | ||
| 34 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 22 | High confidence | ||
| 35 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 16 | High confidence | ||
| 36 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 15 | Limited confidence | ||
| 37 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 38 | 0.5 | 0.9 | -0.3 | 20 | High confidence | ||
| 39 | 0.4 | -0.2 | 1.0 | 14 | Limited confidence | ||
| 40 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 17 | High confidence | ||
| 41 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 23 | High confidence | ||
| 42 | 0.4 | -0.2 | 0.9 | 15 | Medium confidence | ||
| 43 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 25 | High confidence | ||
| 44 | 0.4 | -0.0 | 0.5 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| 45 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 15 | Medium confidence | ||
| 46 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 19 | High confidence | ||
| 47 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 48 | 0.2 | -0.1 | 0.7 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 49 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 20 | High confidence | ||
| 50 | 0.2 | 0.6 | -0.3 | 18 | High confidence | ||
| 51 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 52 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| Prov. | West VirginiaProvisional | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 11 | Medium confidence | |
| 54 | 0.1 | 0.7 | -0.8 | 24 | High confidence | ||
| 55 | 0.1 | -0.1 | 0.3 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| Prov. | BuffaloProvisional | 0.1 | -0.5 | 0.9 | 11 | Limited confidence | |
| 57 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 15 | Limited confidence | ||
| 58 | 0.1 | 0.2 | -0.3 | 12 | Medium confidence | ||
| 59 | 0.1 | 0.3 | -0.2 | 18 | High confidence | ||
| 60 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 18 | High confidence | ||
| 61 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 15 | High confidence | ||
| 62 | 0.0 | 0.3 | -0.2 | 23 | High confidence | ||
| 63 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 17 | Medium confidence | ||
| 64 | -0.0 | -0.3 | 0.3 | 17 | Medium confidence | ||
| 65 | -0.1 | -0.4 | 0.1 | 15 | Medium confidence | ||
| Prov. | TCUProvisional | -0.1 | -0.4 | 0.5 | 10 | Medium confidence | |
| 67 | -0.1 | -0.3 | -0.4 | 20 | High confidence | ||
| 68 | -0.1 | 0.2 | -0.8 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| 69 | -0.1 | -0.2 | -0.3 | 17 | Medium confidence | ||
| Prov. | CaliforniaProvisional | -0.2 | -0.2 | -0.1 | 11 | Medium confidence | |
| 71 | -0.2 | -0.3 | -0.1 | 21 | Limited confidence | ||
| 72 | -0.2 | -0.6 | 0.0 | 18 | Limited confidence | ||
| 73 | -0.2 | -0.4 | -0.1 | 16 | High confidence | ||
| 74 | -0.3 | -0.4 | -0.4 | 22 | Limited confidence | ||
| 75 | -0.3 | -0.2 | -0.4 | 19 | Medium confidence | ||
| 76 | -0.3 | -0.3 | -0.2 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| 77 | -0.3 | -0.6 | 0.3 | 17 | Medium confidence | ||
| 78 | -0.3 | -0.4 | -0.3 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 79 | -0.3 | -0.3 | -0.4 | 16 | Medium confidence | ||
| 80 | -0.3 | -0.2 | -0.5 | 18 | High confidence | ||
| Prov. | ToledoProvisional | -0.3 | -0.4 | -0.3 | 11 | Medium confidence | |
| 82 | -0.3 | -0.4 | -0.3 | 21 | Medium confidence | ||
| 83 | -0.3 | -0.8 | 0.0 | 14 | Limited confidence | ||
| 84 | -0.3 | -0.5 | -0.1 | 12 | Medium confidence | ||
| 85 | -0.4 | -0.7 | -0.6 | 15 | Medium confidence | ||
| 86 | -0.4 | -0.5 | -0.9 | 18 | High confidence | ||
| 87 | -0.4 | -0.7 | -0.4 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| 88 | -0.5 | -0.3 | -0.6 | 20 | High confidence | ||
| 89 | -0.5 | -0.6 | -0.8 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 90 | -0.5 | -0.7 | -0.3 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| Prov. | New Mexico StateProvisional | -0.7 | -0.9 | -0.2 | 10 | Limited confidence | |
| 92 | -0.7 | -0.3 | -1.4 | 18 | High confidence | ||
| 93 | -0.7 | -0.7 | -1.0 | 16 | Medium confidence | ||
| 94 | -0.7 | -0.9 | -0.5 | 18 | Limited confidence | ||
| 95 | -0.7 | -0.5 | -1.1 | 15 | Medium confidence | ||
| 96 | -0.7 | -0.8 | -0.7 | 20 | Medium confidence | ||
| 97 | -0.8 | -0.6 | -1.3 | 18 | Medium confidence | ||
| 98 | -0.9 | -0.7 | -0.6 | 14 | Medium confidence | ||
| 99 | -0.9 | -1.0 | -0.8 | 16 | High confidence | ||
| Prov. | Louisiana TechProvisional | -0.9 | -1.0 | -1.0 | 10 | Limited confidence | |
| 101 | -0.9 | -0.8 | -1.5 | 20 | Limited confidence | ||
| 102 | -0.9 | -0.7 | -0.8 | 18 | Medium confidence | ||
| 103 | -0.9 | -0.8 | -0.9 | 26 | High confidence | ||
| 104 | -0.9 | -1.0 | -0.9 | 15 | High confidence | ||
| 105 | -1.1 | -1.3 | -0.9 | 13 | Medium confidence | ||
| Prov. | HoustonProvisional | -1.6 | -1.5 | -2.0 | 10 | Medium confidence | |
| 107 | -1.9 | -1.7 | -2.2 | 21 | Limited confidence |
Limited / not ranked programs
These programs do not meet the competitive sample minimum for an official Position-U rank.
- Army — 5 eligible players · Not ranked
- Charlotte — 4 eligible players · Not ranked
- Coastal Carolina — 2 eligible players · Not ranked
- Florida International — 3 eligible players · Not ranked
- Georgia Tech — 6 eligible players · Not ranked
- Hawaii — 5 eligible players · Not ranked
- Idaho — 7 eligible players · Not ranked
- Jacksonville State — 3 eligible players · Not ranked
- James Madison — 1 eligible players · Not ranked
- Kent State — 8 eligible players · Not ranked
- Maryland — 7 eligible players · Not ranked
- Massachusetts — 3 eligible players · Not ranked
- Navy — 4 eligible players · Not ranked
- North Texas — 9 eligible players · Not ranked
- Old Dominion — 3 eligible players · Not ranked
- Texas State — 1 eligible players · Not ranked
- Texas Tech — 5 eligible players · Not ranked
- Troy — 5 eligible players · Not ranked
- UTSA — 1 eligible players · Not ranked
- Washington State — 9 eligible players · Not ranked
- Western Kentucky — 9 eligible players · Not ranked
Technical methodology details
Methodology version: position_u_v2_career_credit_60_35_5
Snapshot ID: TE__position_u_v2_career_credit_60_35_5__published-2004-2016__81f304d1b4a0
Data revision: published-2004-2016-cutoff-20260816
Expectation baseline uses star rating first with national-rank fallback. Scoring model is a balanced hierarchical composite (Production 35%, Development 35%, Consistency 20%, Elite Ceiling 10%).
Confidence and sample guidance
- High confidence — solid sample, class coverage, and expectation coverage with balanced contribution.
- Medium confidence — usable sample with some coverage or concentration caveats.
- Limited confidence — interpret cautiously; sample or coverage is thin or highly concentrated.
- Not ranked — below competitive sample thresholds; no official Position-U rank.
Methodology
C1 composite with player-level career outcome and 60/35/5 school credit (college / NFL launch / origin recruiting). Unused launch weight returns only to the college-contribution pool. Top contributors are ranked by schoolPositionUPoints.
- Eligible years: published 2004–2016 recruiting classes.
- A player’s career result can be split across schools. Credit is 60% college contribution, up to 35% NFL launch (gated by participation), and 5% original recruiting. Unused launch share returns only to the college-contribution pool.
- Walk-ons who were not recruited into the cohort are outside the ranking.
- Tight End uses the same published methodology version as every other Position-U ranking except QB U.
- Only tight end recruiting labels are included. H-back and unresolved tight end hybrids are excluded, so tight end carries a higher provisional share than other groups.
- Headline model: Career-credit Position-U composite (Production / Development / Consistency / Elite Ceiling).
- NFL earnings are supporting evidence only, scaled by schoolCredit, and are not part of the headline score.
- Career-credit: 60% college contribution, 35% NFL launch, 5% origin recruiting. Destination schools may sit outside the published origin window.
- Top contributors are the five highest schoolPositionUPoints at the school, not original-signee outcome.
- Ranked programs need at least 12 eligible players. Provisional band is 10–11 when present.
Rankings cover published recruiting classes 2004–2016. Additional position rankings are added only after data and methodology validation.
Related exploration
- Quarterback Position-U rankings
- Wide Receiver Position-U rankings
- Running Back Position-U rankings
- Offensive Line Position-U rankings
- Edge Position-U rankings
- Defensive Line Position-U rankings
- Linebacker Position-U rankings
- Cornerback Position-U rankings
- Safety Position-U rankings
- Program directory
- 2016 recruiting class ReRankings