← Back

CLASS 6A · District 16-6A

Cy Lakes Spartans

Enrollment: 3,038 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 4

Rank

#117

was #149

Record

4-2

2-1 district

Elo

1523

#117 of 249

OVR Grade

#117 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

#123 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

74.2

#131 of 249 in 6A

Perf

1476

#130 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
1	Katy Freeman	76% (+11)	W 19-14	1299	−15.5	−7.5	+0.06	—
2	Aldine Davis (5-1) 1655	61% (+4)	L 29-42	1256	+3.4	+13.1	—	−0.87
3	@Spring (2-4) 1061	79% (+13)	W 44-24	1606	+9.0	+4.7	+0.04	—
4	@Langham Creek (5-1) 1754	28% (-9)	L 14-36	1241	−3.9	+6.5	—	−0.69
6	Cy Ridge (3-3) 644	92% (+24)	W 54-17	1460	+4.0	+5.6	+0.01	—
7	@#46Cy Falls (5-1) 1967	5% (-29)	W 21-18	1996	+3.0	−16.8	+0.74	—
8	Cy-Fair (4-2) 1782	25% (-10)	—	—	—	—	—	—
9	@Cy Creek (0-6) 788	96% (+29)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	@Cy Woods (4-1) 1704	32% (-7)	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	Jersey Village (1-5) 923	93% (+24)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 \| @TexasTNG \| texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 16-6A

Rk		Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1	72	Langham Creek (6) Lobos	80.4 1754	5-1	3-0	29.2	16.2	5.7-1.3	> 98%	D2
2	46	Cy Falls (7) Golden Eagles	83.7 1967	5-1	2-1	36.3	15.7	5.4-1.6	97.2%	D2
3	85	Cy Woods (1) Wildcats	79.7 1704	4-1	2-1	32.8	20.0	4.9-2.1	90.3%	D1
4	70	Cy-Fair (3) Bobcats	80.9 1782	4-2	1-2	40.8	26.5	4.2-2.8	64.4%	D1
5	117	Cy Lakes (4) Spartans	77 1523	4-2	2-1	30.2	25.2	4.4-2.5	48%	—
6	212	Jersey Village (2) Falcons	67.9 923	1-5	1-2	16.0	23.3	1.8-5.2	< 2%	—
7	236	Cy Ridge (8) Rams	63.7 644	3-3	1-2	22.7	40.0	1-6	< 2%	—
8	225	Cy Creek (5) Cougars	65.9 788	0-6	0-3	15.0	36.3	0.4-6.6	< 2%	—
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 Cy Lakes’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2025

6-6

Rating 604 (79th)

#2 · 2019

5-5

Rating 545 (60th)

#3 · 2018

5-5

Rating 510 (48th)

#4 · 2024

4-6

Rating 496 (42nd)

#5 · 2011

1-9

Rating 446 (27th)

Team Performance History

Year	Record	Final Elo	PPG	PAPG	Margin	Elo SOS	AOS	ADS	DOM	Perf	RQ	WQ	LQ	All-Time Rating (%ile)
2025	6-6	1878	27.3	23.9	+3.4	1634	+2.1	−8.5	+10.6	1766	−1.52	+1.70	−3.22	604(79th)
2024	4-6	1218	26.7	30.9	−4.2	1574	+1.4	+2.2	−0.9	1478	−3.49	+0.31	−3.80	496(42nd)
2023	3-7	886	20.7	35.3	−14.6	1280	−12.3	+10.3	−22.6	935	−5.03	+0.04	−5.07	397(14th)
2022	2-8	764	12.2	35.6	−23.4	1307	−19.0	+12.3	−31.3	716	−6.41	+0.10	−6.51	349(7th)
2021	0-10	795	6.0	46.5	−40.5	1569	−20.6	+15.9	−36.5	588	−7.08	0.00	−7.08	331(5th)
2020	0-9	998	15.1	43.2	−28.1	1560	−14.1	+11.5	−25.5	862	−6.36	0.00	−6.36	381(11th)
2019	5-5	1483	42.0	29.9	+12.1	1388	+12.6	+3.8	+8.8	1721	−2.69	+0.28	−2.97	545(60th)
2018	5-5	1366	26.3	21.5	+4.8	1406	−3.7	−4.9	+1.2	1531	−2.77	+0.38	−3.14	510(48th)
2017	0-9	871	13.2	34.4	−21.2	1696	−10.3	+2.7	−13.0	1175	−6.36	0.00	−6.36	418(19th)
2016	2-8	1002	26.6	41.5	−14.9	1535	−3.9	+7.8	−11.7	1208	−5.21	+0.29	−5.50	434(23rd)
2015	1-9	811	17.3	43.8	−26.5	1546	−13.2	+9.8	−23.1	923	−6.17	+0.01	−6.18	378(11th)
2014	0-10	745	8.6	44.8	−36.2	1571	−18.2	+13.5	−31.7	707	−7.62	0.00	−7.62	344(6th)
2013	1-9	1066	14.1	31.4	−17.3	1497	−11.7	+4.7	−16.5	1088	−6.35	+0.24	−6.59	425(21st)
2012	0-10	850	17.2	50.2	−33.0	1530	−12.5	+18.5	−31.0	725	−7.03	0.00	−7.03	359(8th)
2011	1-9	1028	27.3	43.4	−16.1	1637	+0.5	+10.5	−10.0	1250	−5.83	+0.02	−5.86	446(27th)
2010	1-9	990	12.5	37.6	−25.1	1598	−14.1	+6.5	−20.5	987	−6.22	+0.09	−6.32	409(17th)
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.