| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 74% (+10) | W 56-37 | 2515 | +23.1 | −17.5 | +0.56 | — | |
| 2 | 24% (-11) | W 50-43 | 2192 | +23.3 | −4.4 | +0.93 | — | |
| 3 | #15Austin Westlake (5-1) 2332 |
51% (+0) | W 49-40 | 2680 | +38.4 | −8.8 | +0.88 | — |
| 4 | #2Allen (6-0) 2857 |
15% (-17) | L 21-51 | 2263 | +19.2 | −11.3 | — | −0.02 |
| 5 | @McKinney (1-5) 1457 |
98% (+37) | W 63-26 | 2352 | +28.5 | −5.5 | +0.16 | — |
| 7 | Prosper Rock Hill (3-3) 1541 |
97% (+33) | W 63-12 | 2759 | +36.8 | −13.5 | +0.22 | — |
| 8 | @Dallas Jesuit (4-2) 1660 |
95% (+29) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | McKinney Boyd (2-4) 1298 |
> 98% (+44) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | 79% (+12) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 11 | Princeton (2-4) 1089 |
> 98% (+52) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#11
was #12
Record
5-1
2-1 district
Elo
2389
#11 of 249
OVR Grade
90
#11 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
94.9
#3 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
83.7
#42 of 249 in 6A
Perf
2460
#13 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 6-6A
| 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 Prosper’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2022
13-2
Rating 750 (97th)
#2 · 2025
11-2
Rating 727 (96th)
#3 · 2021
9-5
Rating 716 (95th)
#4 · 2020
8-4
Rating 686 (92nd)
#5 · 2023
11-2
Rating 675 (91st)
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.