← Back

CLASS 6A · District 28-6A

San Antonio Clark Cougars

Enrollment: 2,656 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 3

Rank

#146

was #146

Record

0-0

0-0 district

Elo

1399

#146 of 249

OVR Grade

75.1

#146 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

—

DEF Grade

—

Perf

—

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	WQ	LQ
1	San Antonio Sotomayor (0-0) 1431	47% (-1)	—	—	—	—
2	@#49Cedar Park (0-0) 1896	11% (-20)	—	—	—	—
3	San Antonio East Central (0-0) 1378	52% (+1)	—	—	—	—
5	@San Antonio Churchill (0-0) 1132	75% (+11)	—	—	—	—
6	San Antonio Madison (0-0) 1302	60% (+4)	—	—	—	—
7	@San Antonio Lee (0-0) 625	96% (+31)	—	—	—	—
8	#27San Antonio Johnson (0-0) 2140	4% (-30)	—	—	—	—
9	@San Antonio Roosevelt (0-0) 1442	46% (-2)	—	—	—	—
10	@San Antonio Brandeis (0-0) 1625	28% (-9)	—	—	—	—
11	San Antonio Reagan (0-0) 1685	23% (-11)	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 28-6A

Rk			Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1		27	San Antonio Johnson (2) Jaguars	86.3 2140	0-0	0-0	—	—	6.6-0.4	> 98%	D1
2		79	San Antonio Reagan (1) Rattlers	79.4 1685	0-0	0-0	—	—	4.9-2.1	92.4%	D1
3		87	San Antonio Brandeis (4) Broncos	78.5 1625	0-0	0-0	—	—	4.6-2.4	87.7%	D2
4		135	San Antonio Roosevelt (7) Rough Riders	75.7 1442	0-0	0-0	—	—	3.6-3.4	55.7%	D2
5		146	San Antonio Clark (3) Cougars	75.1 1399	0-0	0-0	—	—	3.3-3.7	39.1%	—
6		166	San Antonio Madison (6) Mavericks	73.6 1302	0-0	0-0	—	—	2.8-4.2	20.1%	—
7		192	San Antonio Churchill (8) Chargers	71 1132	0-0	0-0	—	—	1.9-5.1	5.2%	—
8		243	San Antonio Lee (5) Volunteers	63.4 625	0-0	0-0	—	—	0.3-6.7	< 2%	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

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 San Antonio Clark’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2009

13-1

Rating 664 (90th)

#2 · 2008

12-2

Rating 640 (86th)

#3 · 2005

9-3

Rating 577 (71st)

#4 · 2004

8-4

Rating 562 (66th)

#5 · 2006

5-5

Rating 547 (61st)

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	1224	26.2	25.0	+1.2	1289	−6.6	+0.5	−7.1	1324	−2.37	+0.39	−2.76	475(35th)
2024	5-6	1308	23.5	27.6	−4.2	1367	−7.0	+2.6	−9.6	1259	−4.00	+0.41	−4.41	474(35th)
2023	6-5	1303	20.5	23.8	−3.3	1234	−10.6	+1.9	−12.5	1186	−3.29	+0.50	−3.79	468(32nd)
2022	6-4	1438	32.1	22.1	+10.0	1408	+2.4	−2.6	+5.0	1625	−1.98	+0.66	−2.64	531(56th)
2021	5-5	1539	32.3	21.6	+10.7	1446	+3.9	−3.2	+7.1	1678	−1.80	+0.82	−2.62	543(60th)
2020	3-6	1229	18.1	29.3	−11.2	1645	−5.8	+1.8	−7.6	1310	−2.37	+0.34	−2.71	462(31st)
2019	2-8	1031	10.8	37.3	−26.5	1525	−11.9	+13.2	−25.1	872	−4.99	+0.04	−5.03	391(13th)
2018	3-7	1236	20.1	31.4	−11.3	1528	−5.3	+4.6	−9.9	1253	−3.92	+0.20	−4.12	462(31st)
2017	3-7	1229	36.1	34.6	+1.5	1353	+3.8	+9.0	−5.2	1370	−4.29	+0.07	−4.36	476(35th)
2016	4-5	1229	24.3	29.9	−5.6	1312	−7.3	+6.0	−13.3	1167	−3.64	+0.18	−3.82	449(27th)
2015	2-8	1116	13.9	34.4	−20.5	1548	−16.1	+2.9	−19.0	1024	−5.13	+0.04	−5.17	419(19th)
2014	4-6	1242	19.9	29.4	−9.5	1516	−6.5	+1.3	−7.8	1306	−3.23	+0.50	−3.73	469(33rd)
2013	5-6	1375	23.0	32.4	−9.4	1516	−5.3	+3.8	−9.0	1274	−2.54	+0.20	−2.75	478(36th)
2012	4-6	1344	30.2	35.4	−5.2	1471	+2.2	+7.5	−5.3	1367	−3.73	+0.54	−4.26	488(40th)
2011	4-6	1327	24.6	25.7	−1.1	1431	−1.5	+2.2	−3.7	1407	−3.52	+0.46	−3.98	494(42nd)
2010	4-6	1310	29.2	25.1	+4.1	1455	+2.1	0.0	+2.1	1552	−4.65	+0.19	−4.84	513(49th)
2009	13-1	2073	30.6	11.8	+18.8	1488	+5.6	−13.1	+18.8	1969	+2.48	+2.66	−0.18	664(90th)
2008	12-2	1954	35.8	17.7	+18.1	1487	+8.2	−7.7	+15.9	1898	+2.13	+2.67	−0.54	640(86th)
2007	6-5	1574	26.2	18.4	+7.8	1386	+0.4	−2.7	+3.1	1577	−2.78	+0.44	−3.22	543(60th)
2006	5-5	1532	25.7	17.6	+8.1	1399	−1.2	−6.1	+4.9	1623	−3.09	+0.68	−3.77	547(61st)
2005	9-3	1704	27.2	18.4	+8.8	1426	+2.4	−4.6	+7.0	1676	−0.81	+1.07	−1.88	577(71st)
2004	8-4	1596	33.2	24.8	+8.4	1437	+7.8	+1.4	+6.3	1658	−1.95	+0.76	−2.71	562(66th)
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.