← Back
CLASS 6A · District 11-6A

Duncanville Panthers

Enrollment: 4,214 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 1
Rank
#7
was #7
Record
3-3
2-1 district
Elo
2485
#7 of 249
OVR Grade
91.5
#7 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
85.6
#33 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
96.7
#4 of 249 in 6A
Perf
2512
#10 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk Opponent (Rec) Elo Proj WP% Result Perf AOS ADS WQ LQ
1
@#2Allen (6-0) 2857
69% (+8) L 7-26 2538 +5.2 −36.3 — −0.06
2
Cedar Hill
98% (+36) W 34-7 2309 +8.7 −23.7 +0.29 —
3
DeSoto
53% (+1) L 20-21 2526 +13.0 −28.0 — −0.06
4
#1North Crowley (6-0) 2885
29% (-9) L 30-47 2384 +29.1 −6.2 — −0.02
5
@Red Oak (4-2) 1711
96% (+31) W 42-0 2680 +17.7 −29.5 +0.36 —
7
Mansfield (2-4) 1536
> 98% (+38) W 45-7 2636 +16.6 −28.8 +0.21 —
8
Crowley (2-4) 1433
> 98% (+42) — — — — — —
9
@#4Waxahachie (5-1) 2612
37% (-5) — — — — — —
10 93% (+24) — — — — — —
11
@Dallas Skyline (1-5) 1070
> 98% (+57) — — — — — —
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 11-6A

Rk Team (Enroll Rk) OVR/Elo Overall District PPG PAPG ProjRec PO% Bracket
1 1
Panthers
97.5
2885
6-0 3-0 38.5 15.2 7-0 > 98% D2
2 4
Indians
93.4
2612
5-1 2-1 47.3 25.2 5.6-1.4 > 98% D1
3 7
Panthers
91.5
2485
3-3 2-1 29.7 18.0 5.3-1.7 > 98% D1
4 56
Eagles
82.3
1880
4-2 2-1 38.7 40.2 3.6-3.4 67.8% D2
5 83
Hawks
79.8
1711
4-2 2-1 26.2 27.2 3.3-3.7 32% —
6 135
Eagles
75.6
1433
2-4 1-2 27.8 27.5 1.5-5.5 < 2% —
7 113
Tigers
77.1
1536
2-4 0-3 31.2 35.2 1.5-5.5 < 2% —
8 197
Raiders
70.1
1070
1-5 0-3 18.8 42.2 0.2-6.8 < 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 Duncanville’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2022
15-0
Rating 951 (100th)
#2 · 2023
14-1
Rating 916 (100th)
#3 · 2021
13-2
Rating 891 (100th)
#4 · 2024
13-1
Rating 856 (99th)
#5 · 2025
12-2
Rating 855 (99th)

Team Performance History

Year Record Final
Elo
PPG PAPG Margin Elo
SOS
AOS ADS DOM Perf RQ WQ LQ All-Time
Rating (%ile)
2025 12-2 2787 34.5 13.6 +20.9 2091 +17.8 −27.3 +45.1 2628 +7.08 +7.25 −0.18 855(99th)
2024 13-1 2800 43.6 14.5 +29.1 1985 +24.2 −26.1 +50.3 2759 +6.90 +6.92 −0.02 856(99th)
2023 14-1 2919 51.3 12.7 +38.5 1924 +30.1 −25.2 +55.3 2882 +6.89 +6.92 −0.03 916(100th)
2022 15-0 2963 41.9 10.4 +31.5 1939 +23.1 −27.8 +50.8 2771 +7.89 +7.89 0.00 951(100th)
2021 13-2 2857 47.4 12.1 +35.3 1913 +29.4 −27.0 +56.3 2909 +5.54 +6.37 −0.83 891(100th)
2020 10-1 2709 48.5 12.7 +35.7 1852 +25.9 −22.3 +48.2 2706 +4.54 +4.58 −0.04 831(99th)
2019 15-1 2779 44.7 9.8 +34.9 1655 +20.8 −22.8 +43.6 2590 +4.89 +4.90 −0.01 830(99th)
2018 14-1 2756 50.3 9.1 +41.2 1624 +23.0 −23.8 +46.8 2671 +4.72 +4.74 −0.01 840(99th)
2017 11-1 2501 42.8 9.4 +33.4 1566 +18.5 −18.4 +36.9 2422 +3.25 +3.50 −0.25 764(98th)
2016 11-3 2188 32.5 20.2 +12.3 1756 +8.6 −13.6 +22.1 2054 +3.57 +3.73 −0.16 674(91st)
2015 3-7 1441 22.7 27.5 −4.8 1878 −0.4 −10.1 +9.6 1741 −2.37 +0.80 −3.18 559(65th)
2014 3-7 1445 27.3 36.5 −9.2 1938 +3.6 −3.4 +7.0 1676 −1.67 +0.99 −2.66 557(64th)
2013 5-5 1762 30.6 30.5 +0.1 1900 +10.1 −6.7 +16.8 1920 +0.70 +2.39 −1.70 616(82nd)
2012 3-7 1581 19.6 32.0 −12.4 1946 −1.5 −7.6 +6.1 1652 −1.95 +1.07 −3.02 570(69th)
2011 7-4 1747 35.5 32.6 +2.8 1665 +10.0 −0.3 +10.2 1756 −0.14 +1.46 −1.60 579(71st)
2010 8-4 1801 42.2 28.5 +13.7 1551 +14.8 −0.8 +15.6 1890 −0.35 +1.24 −1.59 602(78th)
2009 4-6 1509 21.7 25.2 −3.5 1637 −1.9 −2.9 +1.0 1525 −1.97 +1.29 −3.26 525(54th)
2008 6-5 1750 24.5 23.1 +1.4 1691 +0.6 −7.7 +8.3 1707 −0.54 +1.53 −2.07 573(70th)
2007 3-7 1388 27.0 35.7 −8.7 1740 +4.3 +3.0 +1.3 1533 −2.33 +0.78 −3.11 520(52nd)
2006 2-8 1366 21.7 26.5 −4.8 1701 −1.2 −5.8 +4.7 1617 −4.41 +0.30 −4.72 528(55th)
2005 6-4 1688 24.7 20.3 +4.4 1551 −1.1 −7.8 +6.7 1668 −1.36 +1.11 −2.46 565(67th)
2004 9-3 2009 34.4 18.4 +16.0 1629 +10.0 −10.4 +20.4 2009 +0.68 +2.07 −1.40 654(88th)
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.