← Back

CLASS 6A · District 12-6A

Temple Wildcats

Enrollment: 2,437 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 2

Rank

#134

was #130

Record

1-6

0-3 district

Elo

1448

#134 of 249

OVR Grade

75.8

#134 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

76.2

#110 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

74

#135 of 249 in 6A

Perf

1512

#123 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
1	@Georgetown	57% (+3)	L 23-28	1419	−4.1	−0.9	—	−0.67
2	#42Round Rock (4-2) 2019	38% (-5)	L 37-49	1647	+12.3	+6.5	—	−0.57
3	San Antonio Pieper (3-3) 1642	47% (-1)	W 55-49	1844	+22.7	+8.9	+0.29	—
4	@Hutto (5-2) 1894	39% (-4)	L 14-53	1287	−9.6	−1.0	—	−0.57
5	Copperas Cove (5-2) 1566	64% (+5)	L 28-35	1425	−4.4	−1.4	—	−0.84
6	@#39Waco Midway (6-1) 2038	10% (-21)	L 7-33	1390	−8.6	−4.2	—	−0.33
7	Killeen Harker Heights (4-2) 1909	14% (-17)	L 35-42	1571	+3.7	+0.8	—	−0.46
8	@Lake Belton (3-3) 1596	35% (-6)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	Bryan (1-6) 760	95% (+28)	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	@Killeen Chaparral (2-4) 920	90% (+21)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 12-6A

Rk			Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1		39	Waco Midway (1) Panthers	84.7 2038	6-1	3-0	36.4	15.6	5.5-0.5	> 98%	D1
2		54	Killeen Harker Heights (5) Knights	82.8 1909	4-2	2-0	37.2	39.5	5.2-0.8	> 98%	D2
3		106	Copperas Cove (3) Bulldawgs	77.6 1566	5-2	3-0	42.0	30.0	3.8-2.2	> 98%	D1
4		100	Lake Belton (6) Broncos	78.1 1596	3-3	0-2	33.5	35.2	3.1-2.9	78.3%	D2
5		134	Temple (2) Wildcats	75.8 1448	1-6	0-3	28.4	41.3	2.2-3.8	20.9%	—
6		213	Killeen Chaparral (7) Bobcats	67.9 920	2-4	1-1	21.8	31.2	1.2-4.8	< 2%	—
7		228	Bryan (4) Vikings	65.4 760	1-6	0-3	20.0	41.3	0.1-5.9	< 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 Temple’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2020

9-2

Rating 651 (88th)

#2 · 2021

9-3

Rating 647 (87th)

#3 · 2018

8-3

Rating 641 (86th)

#4 · 2022

7-4

Rating 638 (86th)

#5 · 2019

8-3

Rating 618 (82nd)

Team Performance History

Year	Record	Final Elo	PPG	PAPG	Margin	Elo SOS	AOS	ADS	DOM	Perf	RQ	WQ	LQ	All-Time Rating (%ile)
2025	7-4	1675	30.3	21.6	+8.6	1547	+2.9	−8.9	+11.7	1793	−0.92	+0.73	−1.65	578(71st)
2024	7-4	1615	34.4	27.4	+7.0	1533	+4.9	−5.7	+10.6	1765	−0.69	+1.14	−1.83	570(69th)
2023	1-9	994	30.7	43.9	−13.2	1606	−0.3	+9.6	−9.9	1253	−6.18	+0.11	−6.29	449(27th)
2022	7-4	1897	33.0	23.0	+10.0	1781	+9.1	−13.7	+22.8	2071	+0.19	+1.47	−1.28	638(86th)
2021	9-3	2009	44.0	25.8	+18.2	1692	+17.6	−8.0	+25.6	2141	+0.73	+1.71	−0.98	647(87th)
2020	9-2	2014	37.4	21.3	+16.1	1701	+12.1	−12.4	+24.5	2112	+1.94	+2.46	−0.52	651(88th)
2019	8-3	1923	44.6	28.8	+15.8	1609	+16.8	−2.2	+18.9	1973	+0.58	+1.16	−0.57	618(82nd)
2018	8-3	1945	40.5	20.8	+19.7	1673	+13.5	−11.3	+24.8	2119	+1.02	+2.29	−1.27	641(86th)
2017	2-1	2010	38.0	28.3	+9.7	1927	+13.4	−12.5	+25.9	2147	+0.96	+1.16	−0.20	—
2016	2-2	1902	25.2	24.8	+0.5	2093	+5.9	−19.7	+25.6	2140	+0.34	+0.98	−0.65	—
2015	2-1	1892	26.0	19.3	+6.7	1944	+9.7	−15.3	+25.0	2125	+0.52	+0.83	−0.31	—
2014	2-1	1881	47.3	30.3	+17.0	1798	+27.6	−5.4	+33.0	2325	+0.17	+0.56	−0.39	—
2013	7-4	1811	44.0	35.8	+8.2	1688	+15.9	−0.1	+16.0	1899	+0.16	+0.87	−0.71	601(78th)
2012	6-4	1608	36.8	44.1	−7.3	1682	+13.2	+11.8	+1.3	1534	−0.17	+1.75	−1.92	535(57th)
2011	6-5	1618	30.1	28.6	+1.5	1530	+3.9	+0.6	+3.3	1583	−1.49	+1.13	−2.62	544(60th)
2010	1-9	1060	16.4	37.6	−21.2	1506	−11.5	+8.5	−20.0	1001	−6.69	+0.01	−6.70	416(19th)
2009	4-6	1572	21.1	25.1	−4.0	1597	−3.4	−3.2	−0.2	1495	−2.49	+1.17	−3.67	527(54th)
2008	5-6	1656	29.8	28.8	+1.0	1622	+5.1	−0.9	+6.0	1649	−1.92	+0.69	−2.61	556(64th)
2007	7-4	1635	33.3	22.9	+10.4	1502	+8.8	−3.2	+12.0	1801	−1.58	+1.46	−3.03	577(71st)
2006	2-8	1084	10.9	24.2	−13.3	1481	−13.3	−0.3	−13.0	1174	−5.62	+0.11	−5.74	444(26th)
2005	0-10	986	9.6	30.5	−20.9	1646	−12.0	+3.3	−15.2	1120	−7.14	0.00	−7.14	429(22nd)
2004	2-8	1274	12.4	23.2	−10.8	1585	−9.7	−2.4	−7.3	1318	−5.16	+0.16	−5.33	483(38th)
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.