← Back
CLASS 6A · District 16-6A

Langham Creek Lobos

Enrollment: 2,978 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 6
Rank
#72
was #80
Record
5-1
3-0 district
Elo
1754
#72 of 249
OVR Grade
80.4
#72 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
77
#101 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
83.3
#45 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1817
#74 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk Opponent (Rec) Elo Proj WP% Result Perf AOS ADS WQ LQ
1
@Katy Paetow (2-4) 1511
 51% (+1) W 40-21 1943 +14.0 −3.8 +0.26 —
2
Houston Stratford (2-4) 1345
 79% (+13) W 48-7 2333 +18.6 −14.7 +0.13 —
3
@Conroe Grand Oaks (4-2) 1841
 48% (-1) L 14-38 1110 −11.6 +4.0 — −0.57
4
Cy Lakes (4-2) 1523
 72% (+9) W 36-14 2055 +8.4 −13.8 +0.15 —
6
@Jersey Village (1-5) 923
 98% (+36) W 21-3 1782 −3.7 −15.0 +0.01 —
7
Cy Woods (4-1) 1704
 46% (-1) W 16-14 1677 −8.2 −15.3 +0.39 —
8
Cy Ridge (3-3) 644
 > 98% (+44) — — — — — —
9
@#46Cy Falls (5-1) 1967
 29% (-9) — — — — — —
10
Cy-Fair (4-2) 1782
 47% (-1) — — — — — —
11
@Cy Creek (0-6) 788
 > 98% (+39) — — — — — —
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
Lobos
80.4
1754
 5-1 3-0 29.2 16.2 5.7-1.3 > 98% D2
2 46
Golden Eagles
83.7
1967
 5-1 2-1 36.3 15.7 5.4-1.6 97.2% D2
3 85
Wildcats
79.7
1704
 4-1 2-1 32.8 20.0 4.9-2.1 90.3% D1
4 70
Bobcats
80.9
1782
 4-2 1-2 40.8 26.5 4.2-2.8 64.4% D1
5 117
Spartans
77
1523
 4-2 2-1 30.2 25.2 4.4-2.5 48% —
6 212
Falcons
67.9
923
 1-5 1-2 16.0 23.3 1.8-5.2 < 2% —
7 236
Rams
63.7
644
 3-3 1-2 22.7 40.0 1-6 < 2% —
8 225
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 Langham Creek’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2017
11-2
Rating 654 (88th)
#2 · 2014
9-2
Rating 616 (82nd)
#3 · 2013
8-3
Rating 613 (81st)
#4 · 2012
9-3
Rating 603 (78th)
#5 · 2016
8-4
Rating 600 (78th)

Team Performance History

Year Record Final
Elo		 PPG PAPG Margin Elo
SOS		 AOS ADS DOM Perf RQ WQ LQ All-Time
Rating (%ile)
2025 6-4 1477 33.0 25.6 +7.4 1423 +2.6 −1.7 +4.3 1607 −1.13 +1.01 −2.14 536(57th)
2024 4-6 1255 30.0 22.8 +7.2 1441 +1.2 −3.9 +5.1 1627 −3.66 +0.36 −4.03 518(52nd)
2023 4-6 1244 25.5 36.2 −10.7 1402 −5.2 +8.5 −13.7 1158 −3.87 +0.31 −4.18 458(30th)
2022 5-5 1400 34.7 32.8 +1.9 1378 +3.5 +6.7 −3.2 1419 −2.73 +0.68 −3.41 500(44th)
2021 4-6 1387 30.7 28.5 +2.2 1566 +3.0 −2.0 +5.0 1625 −2.51 +0.77 −3.28 522(53rd)
2020 4-5 1387 29.7 32.3 −2.7 1591 −0.5 −0.7 +0.2 1505 −2.27 +0.37 −2.65 502(45th)
2019 2-8 1185 12.6 29.5 −16.9 1544 −14.2 +0.5 −14.7 1132 −5.06 +0.15 −5.21 440(24th)
2018 6-5 1810 30.5 19.7 +10.7 1535 +2.8 −9.0 +11.8 1795 −1.90 +0.61 −2.51 585(73rd)
2017 11-2 2037 36.1 20.0 +16.1 1656 +11.9 −9.5 +21.3 2033 +2.32 +2.63 −0.31 654(88th)
2016 8-4 1737 42.7 31.7 +11.0 1601 +13.4 −1.5 +14.9 1873 −0.11 +1.50 −1.61 600(78th)
2015 5-5 1808 42.8 29.6 +13.2 1569 +12.2 −3.8 +16.0 1900 −1.89 +0.96 −2.85 599(77th)
2014 9-2 1938 40.8 27.2 +13.6 1609 +14.3 −3.3 +17.6 1941 +0.83 +1.93 −1.10 616(82nd)
2013 8-3 1910 36.4 21.4 +15.0 1558 +11.4 −5.7 +17.1 1927 +0.07 +1.85 −1.78 613(81st)
2012 9-3 1919 40.4 29.9 +10.5 1586 +11.4 −2.1 +13.6 1839 +1.60 +2.63 −1.03 603(78th)
2011 6-5 1647 43.5 35.8 +7.6 1501 +15.7 +6.6 +9.1 1727 −1.92 +0.77 −2.70 566(67th)
2010 5-5 1362 29.6 34.6 −5.0 1514 +1.8 +5.9 −4.1 1398 −2.91 +0.63 −3.53 497(43rd)
2009 5-5 1505 29.1 31.7 −2.6 1543 +1.8 +1.6 +0.2 1506 −2.05 +0.65 −2.70 523(53rd)
2008 3-7 1396 25.7 33.4 −7.7 1666 +2.0 +3.3 −1.3 1468 −3.79 +0.62 −4.42 509(48th)
2007 6-4 1616 25.5 24.5 +1.0 1512 −1.5 −3.2 +1.7 1542 −1.28 +0.47 −1.75 541(59th)
2006 6-4 1491 26.9 28.3 −1.4 1454 +2.6 +3.0 −0.4 1490 −1.76 +0.81 −2.57 522(53rd)
2005 6-4 1396 28.9 25.9 +3.0 1403 +4.6 +4.6 0.0 1501 −2.14 +0.87 −3.01 516(51st)
2004 0-10 897 8.8 30.6 −21.8 1458 −14.8 +8.7 −23.6 911 −8.78 0.00 −8.78 395(14th)
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.