| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | @San Antonio Jay |
28% (-9) | W 55-21 | 1806 | +16.1 | +3.9 | +0.08 | — |
| 2 | Castroville Medina Valley |
15% (-17) | L 20-63 | 634 | −3.8 | +30.8 | — | −0.68 |
| 3 | San Antonio Marshall (1-5) 693 |
88% (+19) | W 48-7 | 1540 | −0.5 | −2.1 | +0.01 | — |
| 4 | @San Antonio Harlan (5-1) 1927 |
6% (-26) | L 7-41 | 1140 | −10.9 | +3.5 | — | −0.44 |
| 5 | San Antonio Taft (4-3) 1192 |
44% (-2) | W 34-13 | 1641 | −1.0 | −6.6 | +0.09 | — |
| 6 | @San Antonio Sotomayor (5-2) 1586 |
36% (-6) | L 11-40 | 791 | −11.8 | +16.5 | — | −0.81 |
| 7 | San Antonio O'Connor (3-3) 1131 |
62% (+5) | W 31-28 | 1302 | −0.1 | +7.8 | +0.05 | — |
| 8 | @San Antonio Holmes (1-5) 523 |
97% (+32) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | #41San Antonio Brennan (5-1) 2028 |
5% (-28) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | @San Antonio Stevens (2-5) 800 |
90% (+21) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#162
was #163
Record
4-3
3-2 district
Elo
1317
#162 of 249
OVR Grade
73.8
#162 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
73.8
#137 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
68.5
#183 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1265
#162 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 29-6A
| 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 San Antonio Warren’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2007
10-2
Rating 649 (87th)
#2 · 2008
9-3
Rating 624 (83rd)
#3 · 2011
11-2
Rating 615 (81st)
#4 · 2006
9-3
Rating 589 (75th)
#5 · 2013
9-3
Rating 587 (74th)
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.