| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | #25Cy Ranch (5-1) 2165 |
23% (-11) | L 7-24 | 1904 | −1.4 | −17.6 | — | −0.31 |
| 2 | @Cy Springs (2-4) 1559 |
63% (+5) | L 30-33 | 1653 | +1.0 | −5.2 | — | −0.75 |
| 3 | Richmond Foster (2-4) 1233 |
76% (+11) | W 54-0 | 2481 | +23.0 | −16.3 | +0.12 | — |
| 4 | Fort Bend Elkins (2-5) 1464 |
75% (+11) | W 40-0 | 2434 | +11.9 | −25.5 | +0.15 | — |
| 5 | @Strake Jesuit (2-5) 1493 |
78% (+12) | W 40-28 | 1779 | +15.6 | +4.5 | +0.16 | — |
| 6 | @Fort Bend Bush (1-6) 1215 |
91% (+22) | W 41-6 | 1975 | +8.3 | −10.7 | +0.08 | — |
| 7 | Fort Bend Clements (3-4) 1095 |
95% (+29) | W 42-3 | 2174 | +6.2 | −20.8 | +0.04 | — |
| 9 | @Fort Bend Travis (6-1) 1770 |
56% (+2) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | Fort Bend Austin (1-6) 869 |
> 98% (+38) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | 7% (-25) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#63
was #62
Record
5-2
4-0 district
Elo
1828
#63 of 249
OVR Grade
81.6
#63 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
81.5
#62 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
86.1
#32 of 249 in 6A
Perf
2057
#44 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 21-6A
| 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 Fort Bend Hightower’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2008
13-1
Rating 752 (97th)
#2 · 2011
13-3
Rating 699 (94th)
#3 · 2023
12-2
Rating 693 (93rd)
#4 · 2009
11-1
Rating 672 (91st)
#5 · 2022
10-3
Rating 639 (86th)
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.






