| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | @Hurst Bell (3-3) 1286 |
77% (+11) | L 7-27 | 987 | −16.3 | +4.3 | — | −0.92 |
| 2 | Crandall |
57% (+3) | W 26-15 | 1486 | −7.8 | −7.2 | +0.09 | — |
| 3 | @Frisco Wakeland (2-4) 1457 |
45% (-2) | L 36-39 | 1288 | +7.1 | +15.6 | — | −0.83 |
| 4 | South Garland (2-4) 442 |
98% (+35) | W 55-0 | 1633 | +1.8 | −3.6 | +0.00 | — |
| 5 | @Garland Sachse (6-0) 1785 |
17% (-15) | L 35-45 | 1630 | +11.7 | +6.5 | — | −0.59 |
| 7 | Garland Lakeview Centennial (2-4) 1348 |
48% (-1) | W 32-31 | 1356 | +1.7 | +7.4 | +0.12 | — |
| 8 | @Wylie East (4-2) 1720 |
20% (-13) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | Garland (2-4) 1176 |
70% (+8) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | @Wylie (4-2) 1571 |
31% (-7) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | @North Garland (1-5) 760 |
93% (+25) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#146
was #158
Record
3-3
2-1 district
Elo
1384
#146 of 249
OVR Grade
74.8
#146 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
74.8
#128 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
71.7
#161 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1397
#139 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 9-6A
| 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 Garland Rowlett’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2015
10-3
Rating 621 (82nd)
#2 · 2005
9-3
Rating 612 (81st)
#3 · 2011
7-5
Rating 610 (80th)
#4 · 2007
6-6
Rating 603 (78th)
#5 · 2016
9-2
Rating 592 (76th)
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.