In addition to the need for upper body strength, college football may require other qualities of the upper body muscular performance to achieve success. Thus, some teams have explored alternatives to the one-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press as a means of assessing upper body readiness for competition. PURPOSE To determine the efficacy of upper body muscular endurance performances for evaluating small-college football players. METHODS Sixty-four NCAA Div II players (age = 19.6 ± 1.1 y; wt = 92.6 ± 15.0 kg) were divided into linemen (n = 15), backs (n = 28), and tightends/linebackers (TE/LB, n = 21) and evaluated for maximum pushup (PU) and bench press repetitions (BPReps) at the beginning of a winter resistance conditioning program. BPReps were performed using 84.1 or 102.3 kg depending on the perceived ability of the players. Lifting work was estimated from repetitions × load in both bench press (BPWork) and pushups (PUWork). Body composition was assessed using the Jackson-Pollock 3-site equation. RESULTS LB/TE (53.4 ± 8.5) and backs (49.4 ± 8.8) performed significantly more (p<0.05) PU than linemen (40.9 ± 9.4), while LB/TE (4,809 ± 812) and linemen (4,569 ± 815) performed significantly more (p<0.05) PUWork than backs (4,094 ± 771). Linemen (11.5 ± 4.4; 2,571 ± 1007) and LB/TE (8.5 ± 5.1; 1,838 ± 1160) performed significantly more (p<0.05) BPReps and BPWork than backs (5.6 ± 3.5; 1,178 ± 773). Holding LBM and %fat constant eliminated the differences (p>0.05) among positions in BPReps and PUWork but did not alter the differences in PU and BPWork. Starters (n = 26; 77.8 ± 7.9 kg) were significantly different (p<0.05) from nonstarters (72.0 ± 7.8 kg; n = 38) only in LBM, and none of the performance variables could discriminate between starters and nonstarters. CONCLUSIONS : Methods of assessing upper body muscular endurance in college football players may differ significantly between playing positions but may not be used to identify starters and nonstarters.