← Back
CLASS 6A · District 25-6A

Lake Travis Cavaliers

Enrollment: 3,428 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 2
Rank
#33
was #29
Record
2-2-1
1-1 district
Elo
2062
#33 of 249
OVR Grade
85.1
#33 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
84.7
#41 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
84
#40 of 249 in 6A
Perf
2109
#39 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk Opponent (Rec) Elo Proj WP% Result Perf AOS ADS WQ LQ
2
@Pflugerville Weiss
 68% (+7) W 38-21 2427 +20.0 −17.0 +0.71 —
3
@#20Cibolo Steele (4-1-1) 2221
 61% (+4) T 28-28 2247 +9.3 −20.5 — —
4
@San Antonio Cornerstone Christian
 87% (+18) L 35-48 1727 +18.0 +9.0 — −0.50
5
@Round Rock McNeil (0-7) 1099
 98% (+36) W 59-6 2150 +9.1 −16.9 +0.06 —
7
Round Rock Cedar Ridge (7-0) 1852
 78% (+12) L 34-35 1995 +12.2 −7.6 — −0.54
8
@Round Rock Stony Point (3-4) 1335
 95% (+29) — — — — — —
9
#15Austin Westlake (5-1) 2332
 24% (-11) — — — — — —
10
@#42Round Rock (4-2) 2019
 55% (+2) — — — — — —
11
Round Rock Westwood (1-6) 1059
 > 98% (+40) — — — — — —
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 25-6A

Rk Team (Enroll Rk) OVR/Elo Overall District PPG PAPG ProjRec PO% Bracket
1 15
Chaparrals
89.2
2332
 5-1 2-0 42.0 18.0 5.6-0.4 > 98% D2
2 61
Raiders
81.9
1852
 7-0 3-0 46.0 20.4 4.3-1.6 96.3% D2
3 42
Dragons
84.4
2019
 4-2 1-1 35.8 34.2 4.1-1.9 > 98% D1
4 33
Cavaliers
85.1
2062
 2-2 1-1 38.8 27.6 3.7-2.3 96.6% D1
5 158
Tigers
74.1
1335
 3-4 2-1 32.1 33.4 2.2-3.8 7.4% —
6 201
Warriors
69.9
1059
 1-6 0-3 13.7 37.3 0.5-5.5 < 2% —
7 191
Mavericks
70.5
1099
 0-7 0-3 20.4 56.6 0.6-5.4 < 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 Lake Travis’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2016
15-1
Rating 903 (100th)
#2 · 2015
15-1
Rating 820 (99th)
#3 · 2017
13-3
Rating 816 (99th)
#4 · 2019
13-2
Rating 770 (98th)
#5 · 2021
12-3
Rating 769 (98th)

Team Performance History

Year Record Final
Elo		 PPG PAPG Margin Elo
SOS		 AOS ADS DOM Perf RQ WQ LQ All-Time
Rating (%ile)
2025 14-1 2526 37.1 13.4 +23.7 1735 +13.3 −21.5 +34.8 2370 +5.84 +5.88 −0.04 759(98th)
2024 12-2 2340 44.7 15.8 +28.9 1653 +16.9 −17.9 +34.8 2370 +4.11 +4.21 −0.10 740(97th)
2023 11-3 2269 33.3 13.2 +20.1 1680 +9.5 −17.9 +27.4 2185 +3.35 +3.80 −0.45 719(95th)
2022 7-5 2165 37.8 22.0 +15.8 1808 +14.9 −13.3 +28.2 2206 +1.12 +2.00 −0.89 693(93rd)
2021 12-3 2456 45.8 23.4 +22.4 1906 +23.2 −14.8 +38.1 2452 +4.92 +5.04 −0.12 769(98th)
2020 6-1 2269 52.6 18.3 +34.3 1619 +24.2 −14.5 +38.7 2468 +0.79 +1.18 −0.39 —
2019 13-2 2527 45.4 19.3 +26.1 1851 +21.9 −17.9 +39.8 2495 +5.10 +5.63 −0.53 770(98th)
2018 12-2 2589 45.1 22.9 +22.3 1786 +21.9 −12.7 +34.6 2366 +5.08 +5.20 −0.12 759(98th)
2017 13-3 2770 43.3 22.3 +21.0 1964 +21.9 −17.5 +39.4 2484 +5.88 +6.13 −0.25 816(99th)
2016 15-1 2942 51.9 13.0 +38.9 1896 +32.3 −22.5 +54.7 2868 +7.42 +7.54 −0.11 903(100th)
2015 15-1 2635 48.1 13.4 +34.7 1807 +24.4 −21.2 +45.6 2640 +7.08 +7.10 −0.02 820(99th)
2014 10-2 2262 49.7 14.6 +35.1 1551 +20.0 −16.7 +36.7 2419 +2.03 +2.62 −0.59 731(96th)
2013 12-2 2381 40.0 14.3 +25.7 1692 +14.1 −18.0 +32.1 2303 +4.36 +4.84 −0.48 740(97th)
2012 9-2 2134 32.2 14.5 +17.7 1567 +8.1 −13.1 +21.2 2031 +1.54 +2.50 −0.96 659(89th)
2011 1-0 2201 35.0 7.0 +28.0 2035 +19.9 −34.3 +54.2 2855 +0.49 +0.49 0.00 —
2010 1-0 2193 32.0 21.0 +11.0 1855 +10.6 −16.3 +26.9 2173 +0.88 +0.88 0.00 —
2009 3-0 2065 50.3 23.0 +27.3 2034 +32.0 −13.7 +45.7 2643 +1.37 +1.37 0.00 —
2008 2-0 1775 36.5 19.0 +17.5 1890 +16.6 −15.6 +32.2 2305 +0.83 +0.83 0.00 —
2007 1-1 1444 19.5 19.0 +0.5 1635 +0.1 −10.1 +10.1 1753 +0.11 +0.52 −0.41 —
2006 0-2 1237 8.5 36.5 −28.0 1978 −10.6 −1.9 −8.7 1282 −1.22 0.00 −1.22 —
2005 1-0 1352 45.0 13.0 +32.0 1050 +5.6 −8.0 +13.6 1841 +0.03 +0.03 0.00 —
2004 1-0 1292 58.0 30.0 +28.0 1009 +21.1 +14.3 +6.7 1669 +0.03 +0.03 0.00 —
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.