| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Houston Spring Woods |
58% (+3) | W 26-11 | 597 | −27.6 | +8.6 | +0.00 | — |
| 2 | Aldine (0-6) 143 |
71% (+9) | W 42-0 | 1129 | −15.0 | −0.2 | +0.00 | — |
| 3 | @Montgomery Lake Creek |
< 2% (-46) | L 6-70 | 77 | −18.5 | +38.5 | — | −0.68 |
| 5 | Conroe Oak Ridge (1-5) 1070 |
9% (-23) | L 6-37 | 514 | −25.2 | +14.3 | — | −0.96 |
| 6 | @Conroe Caney Creek (2-4) 744 |
30% (-8) | L 19-28 | 609 | −21.7 | +14.0 | — | −0.99 |
| 7 | #36The Woodlands College Park (3-3) 2049 |
< 2% (-63) | L 0-56 | 605 | −22.0 | +13.8 | — | −0.30 |
| 8 | < 2% (-74) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 9 | #40Willis (4-2) 2033 |
< 2% (-63) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | Conroe (3-3) 1530 |
< 2% (-43) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | @Conroe Grand Oaks (4-2) 1841 |
< 2% (-55) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#242
was #242
Record
2-4
0-3 district
Elo
465
#242 of 249
OVR Grade
61
#242 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
59.8
#240 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
62.4
#220 of 249 in 6A
Perf
589
#233 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 13-6A
| 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 Cleveland’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2022
1-9
Rating 352 (7th)
#2 · 2023
0-10
Rating 284 (2nd)
#3 · 2025
0-10
Rating 247 (1st)
#4 · 2024
0-10
Rating 239 (1st)
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.