← Back

CLASS 6A · District 24-6A

Cedar Park Vista Ridge Rangers

Enrollment: 2,496 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 2

Rank

#150

was #154

Record

2-5

0-3 district

Elo

1360

#150 of 249

OVR Grade

74.5

#150 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

76.3

#109 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

63.1

#216 of 249 in 6A

Perf

1197

#173 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
1	@Lake Belton (3-3) 1596	52% (+1)	L 27-58	768	−5.2	+24.1	—	−0.76
2	Austin Bowie (5-1) 1816	22% (-12)	W 40-37	2028	+18.0	−3.1	+0.43	—
3	@Round Rock Cedar Ridge (7-0) 1852	49% (-1)	L 23-70	845	+1.2	+27.4	—	−0.76
4	Round Rock McNeil (0-7) 1099	65% (+6)	W 56-28	1525	+6.1	+5.1	+0.09	—
5	Leander Rouse (4-3) 1600	50% (+0)	L 28-51	1161	+5.5	+19.1	—	−0.81
6	@Hutto (5-2) 1894	11% (-20)	L 10-68	812	−13.6	+14.0	—	−0.46
7	#34Austin Vandegrift (4-2) 2056	6% (-27)	L 20-49	1243	+0.9	+11.2	—	−0.31
8	@Georgetown East View (2-4) 1209	65% (+6)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	#29Cedar Park (7-0) 2096	4% (-29)	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	@Leander (1-5) 798	91% (+22)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 24-6A

Rk			Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1		29	Cedar Park (6) Timberwolves	85.6 2096	7-0	3-0	46.9	19.1	5.5-0.5	> 98%	D2
2		34	Austin Vandegrift (4) Vipers	85 2056	4-2	2-0	32.5	24.7	5-1	> 98%	D2
3		55	Hutto (1) Hippos	82.5 1894	5-2	2-1	56.9	26.1	4.1-1.9	> 98%	D1
4		99	Leander Rouse (3) Raiders	78.1 1600	4-3	2-1	31.6	22.4	3.2-2.8	94.6%	D1
5		175	Georgetown East View (5) Patriots	72.2 1209	2-4	0-2	22.2	34.7	1.4-4.6	5.2%	—
6		150	Cedar Park Vista Ridge (2) Rangers	74.5 1360	2-5	0-3	29.1	51.6	1.6-4.4	< 2%	—
7		223	Leander (7) Lions	66 798	1-5	0-2	17.8	31.3	0.3-5.7	< 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 Cedar Park Vista Ridge’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2020

6-3

Rating 585 (74th)

#2 · 2025

7-4

Rating 574 (70th)

#3 · 2019

8-3

Rating 571 (69th)

#4 · 2023

7-4

Rating 560 (66th)

#5 · 2024

6-5

Rating 534 (56th)

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	1764	30.7	26.5	+4.2	1572	+2.0	−6.0	+8.0	1699	−0.57	+0.94	−1.52	574(70th)
2024	6-5	1604	26.3	28.9	−2.6	1561	−1.8	−1.9	0.0	1501	−1.98	+0.74	−2.71	534(56th)
2023	7-4	1647	18.5	17.1	+1.5	1567	−5.5	−10.2	+4.7	1617	−0.56	+1.53	−2.08	560(66th)
2022	5-5	1547	19.0	26.5	−7.5	1675	−3.1	−4.6	+1.5	1538	−1.39	+0.87	−2.26	530(55th)
2021	4-6	1501	19.0	26.0	−7.0	1648	−6.0	−5.0	−1.0	1476	−2.81	+0.26	−3.07	513(49th)
2020	6-3	1767	34.6	24.0	+10.6	1687	+8.5	−6.4	+14.8	1871	+0.12	+1.50	−1.38	585(74th)
2019	8-3	1725	40.2	31.6	+8.5	1542	+10.0	+0.2	+9.8	1746	+0.75	+1.66	−0.91	571(69th)
2018	1-9	1073	14.8	45.6	−30.8	1610	−11.8	+13.0	−24.9	878	−5.63	+0.04	−5.68	397(14th)
2017	4-6	1295	27.0	39.0	−12.0	1681	+0.1	+5.4	−5.3	1367	−2.29	+0.25	−2.53	482(37th)
2016	3-8	1210	21.5	37.8	−16.3	1731	−1.2	+6.9	−8.1	1297	−4.09	+0.35	−4.45	466(32nd)
2011	1-1	1297	24.5	14.5	+10.0	1244	−6.9	−8.3	+1.5	1537	−0.93	+0.03	−0.96	—
2010	2-0	1351	29.5	21.0	+8.5	1095	−2.2	−3.0	+0.7	1518	+0.13	+0.13	0.00	—
2009	1-9	1190	20.1	34.2	−14.1	1658	−4.2	+3.3	−7.5	1313	−5.60	+0.08	−5.69	469(33rd)
2008	2-8	1246	22.9	36.3	−13.4	1732	+3.0	+6.3	−3.3	1418	−3.91	+0.47	−4.38	489(40th)
2007	0-2	1213	15.0	30.5	−15.5	1554	−10.5	+1.6	−12.2	1195	−1.79	0.00	−1.79	—
2006	1-1	1364	17.0	21.0	−4.0	1244	−16.1	+1.0	−17.1	1072	−0.86	+0.05	−0.90	—
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.