| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | @Iowa Colony |
50% (0) | W 38-10 | 2619 | +18.4 | −26.4 | +0.78 | — |
| 2 | Cy-Fair (4-2) 1782 |
89% (+20) | L 45-53 | 1700 | +20.5 | +12.5 | — | −0.57 |
| 3 | #6Sheldon CE King (6-1) 2580 |
21% (-13) | L 7-58 | 1514 | +0.0 | −0.5 | — | −0.09 |
| 5 | 27% (-10) | W 63-21 | 3053 | +44.3 | −17.8 | +0.86 | — | |
| 6 | #17The Woodlands (5-1) 2314 |
75% (+11) | L 7-39 | 1630 | −5.8 | −11.0 | — | −0.35 |
| 7 | @Cleveland (2-4) 465 |
> 98% (+63) | W 56-0 | 1937 | +11.1 | −6.4 | +0.00 | — |
| 8 | Conroe (3-3) 1530 |
90% (+21) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | @Conroe Grand Oaks (4-2) 1841 |
70% (+8) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | Conroe Oak Ridge (1-5) 1070 |
> 98% (+39) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | Conroe Caney Creek (2-4) 744 |
> 98% (+52) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
CLASS 6A · District 13-6A
The Woodlands College Park Cavaliers
Enrollment: 3,192 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 5
Rank
#36
was #37
Record
3-3
2-1 district
Elo
2049
#36 of 249
OVR Grade
84.9
#36 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
85.4
#36 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
82
#58 of 249 in 6A
Perf
2076
#42 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 13-6A
| 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 The Woodlands College Park’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2025
12-1
Rating 708 (95th)
#2 · 2007
9-2
Rating 592 (76th)
#3 · 2021
8-4
Rating 582 (73rd)
#4 · 2024
7-5
Rating 571 (69th)
#5 · 2020
7-2
Rating 568 (68th)
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.






