| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A&M Consolidated |
62% (+5) | W 40-35 | 1860 | +16.7 | +2.3 | +0.43 | — |
| 2 | San Antonio Clark (1-5) 1197 |
93% (+25) | W 68-7 | 2747 | +36.6 | −13.3 | +0.09 | — |
| 3 | 42% (-3) | W 39-34 | 2165 | +23.4 | −3.2 | +0.68 | — | |
| 4 | New Braunfels |
93% (+24) | W 51-0 | 2685 | +21.2 | −26.2 | +0.15 | — |
| 5 | Leander (1-5) 798 |
> 98% (+50) | W 56-0 | 2259 | +17.9 | −12.4 | +0.01 | — |
| 6 | @Leander Rouse (4-3) 1600 |
86% (+17) | W 37-23 | 2086 | +14.5 | −8.9 | +0.27 | — |
| 7 | Hutto (5-2) 1894 |
65% (+6) | W 37-35 | 2312 | +13.4 | −19.0 | +0.57 | — |
| 8 | 54% (+2) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 9 | Georgetown East View (2-4) 1209 |
98% (+35) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | @Cedar Park Vista Ridge (2-5) 1360 |
96% (+29) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#29
was #33
Record
7-0
3-0 district
Elo
2096
#29 of 249
OVR Grade
85.6
#29 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
89.4
#15 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
84.8
#38 of 249 in 6A
Perf
2302
#26 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 24-6A
| Rk | Team (Enroll Rk) | OVR/ |
Overall | District | PPG | PAPG | ProjRec | PO% | Bracket | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | |||||||||||
| ProjRec, PO%, and Bracket represent the result of 10,000 Monte Carlo season simulations from this point forward based on each team's current Elo | |||||||||||
Since 2004
Historical Performance
Shaded band is the 6A league mean Elo ± 1 standard deviation for that season; the dashed gray line is the league mean. The four colored dashed lines mark the Elo needed that season to rank Top 10 / 25 / 50 / 100 among all qualifying 6A team-seasons (min. 8 games) — a rough gauge of how Cedar Park’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2004
11-3
Rating 653 (88th)
#2 · 2009
7-4
Rating 613 (81st)
#3 · 2007
6-4
Rating 608 (80th)
#4 · 2008
6-5
Rating 608 (80th)
#5 · 2006
9-3
Rating 574 (70th)
Team Performance History
| Year | Record | Final Elo |
PPG | PAPG | Margin | Elo SOS |
AOS | ADS | DOM | Perf | RQ | WQ | LQ | All-Time Rating (%ile) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||||||||
Margin — Average scoring margin (PPG minus PAPG).
Elo SOS — Average Elo of opponents faced that season, using each opponent's final season Elo.
AOS — Adjusted Offensive Scoring — scoring output compared to the expected average team's offensive performance, adjusted for opponents' defensive strength.
ADS — Adjusted Defensive Scoring — scoring allowed compared to the expected average defensive team's performance, adjusted for opponents' offensive strength; lower (more negative) is better.
DOM — Dominance — AOS minus ADS, combined scoring-margin efficiency.
Perf — Performance Elo — that season's DOM translated onto the Elo scale, an independent check on Elo itself.
RQ — Resume Quality — net wins above a second-round-quality opponent (WQ + LQ) for the season. Typically runs about −10 to +10: 0 is a break-even resume against that bar, the median qualifying season sits around −1, and +5 or better is an elite, deep-playoff-caliber resume.
WQ — Win Quality — resume credit earned from wins only, weighted by opponent strength. Each win's credit is benchmarked against a hypothetical ~1850 Elo opponent (roughly a second-round-playoff-quality team) — beating a team stronger than that earns close to full credit, beating a much weaker team earns very little.
LQ — Loss Quality — resume cost from losses only, weighted by opponent strength.
All-Time Rating — 0–990 composite score ranked against every qualifying 6A team-season since 2004; parenthetical is the all-time percentile.