← Back

CLASS 6A · District 24-6A

Cedar Park Timberwolves

Enrollment: 2,304 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 6

Rank

#29

was #33

Record

7-0

3-0 district

Elo

2096

#29 of 249

OVR Grade

85.6

#29 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

89.4

#15 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

84.8

#38 of 249 in 6A

Perf

2302

#26 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
1	A&M Consolidated	62% (+5)	W 40-35	1860	+16.7	+2.3	+0.43	—
2	San Antonio Clark (1-5) 1197	93% (+25)	W 68-7	2747	+36.6	−13.3	+0.09	—
3	@#39Waco Midway (6-1) 2038	42% (-3)	W 39-34	2165	+23.4	−3.2	+0.68	—
4	New Braunfels	93% (+24)	W 51-0	2685	+21.2	−26.2	+0.15	—
5	Leander (1-5) 798	> 98% (+50)	W 56-0	2259	+17.9	−12.4	+0.01	—
6	@Leander Rouse (4-3) 1600	86% (+17)	W 37-23	2086	+14.5	−8.9	+0.27	—
7	Hutto (5-2) 1894	65% (+6)	W 37-35	2312	+13.4	−19.0	+0.57	—
8	@#34Austin Vandegrift (4-2) 2056	54% (+2)	—	—	—	—	—	—
9	Georgetown East View (2-4) 1209	98% (+35)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	@Cedar Park Vista Ridge (2-5) 1360	96% (+29)	—	—	—	—	—	—
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’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2004

11-3

Rating 653 (88th)

#2 · 2009

7-4

Rating 613 (81st)

#3 · 2007

6-4

Rating 608 (80th)

#4 · 2008

6-5

Rating 608 (80th)

#5 · 2006

9-3

Rating 574 (70th)

Team Performance History

Year	Record	Final Elo	PPG	PAPG	Margin	Elo SOS	AOS	ADS	DOM	Perf	RQ	WQ	LQ	All-Time Rating (%ile)
2025	0-2	1833	24.5	43.5	−19.0	2140	+9.4	+5.6	+3.9	1596	−0.63	0.00	−0.63	—
2024	1-1	1793	46.0	45.5	+0.5	2197	+28.3	+2.3	+26.1	2152	+0.16	+0.81	−0.65	—
2023	2-1	1740	24.7	24.0	+0.7	1671	+5.0	−4.6	+9.6	1739	+0.43	+0.50	−0.07	—
2022	0-3	1681	7.0	34.3	−27.3	2080	−7.1	−3.6	−3.4	1414	−1.14	0.00	−1.14	—
2021	1-2	2055	17.7	23.3	−5.7	2129	+5.3	−16.0	+21.3	2033	−0.04	+0.50	−0.53	—
2020	2-0	2272	24.5	10.5	+14.0	1956	+9.4	−24.3	+33.7	2342	+1.23	+1.23	0.00	—
2019	3-1	2167	29.5	17.2	+12.2	1706	+1.6	−13.2	+14.8	1869	+1.02	+1.19	−0.17	—
2018	2-2	2120	23.0	24.5	−1.5	1957	+1.1	−11.5	+12.6	1816	+0.44	+1.21	−0.77	—
2017	1-0	2202	38.0	7.0	+31.0	1874	+20.0	−32.0	+52.0	2800	+0.34	+0.34	0.00	—
2016	2-0	2215	28.0	6.5	+21.5	1905	+9.0	−27.6	+36.7	2416	+1.08	+1.08	0.00	—
2015	2-0	2087	49.0	11.5	+37.5	1189	+16.0	−10.8	+26.8	2169	+0.44	+0.44	0.00	—
2014	2-0	2067	33.5	12.0	+21.5	1510	+7.6	−13.5	+21.1	2027	+0.36	+0.36	0.00	—
2013	3-1	2064	37.2	22.2	+15.0	1684	+8.9	−13.7	+22.7	2066	+0.86	+1.40	−0.54	—
2012	2-2	1916	10.8	11.8	−1.0	1962	−5.7	−19.1	+13.4	1835	+0.06	+0.80	−0.74	—
2011	3-1	1967	38.0	9.2	+28.8	1584	+11.5	−16.3	+27.8	2196	+0.01	+0.67	−0.66	—
2010	4-0	2082	42.5	5.5	+37.0	1621	+18.6	−24.6	+43.2	2580	+1.06	+1.06	0.00	—
2009	7-4	1958	31.5	25.5	+6.0	1728	+7.8	−6.9	+14.7	1868	+0.40	+2.34	−1.95	613(81st)
2008	6-5	1842	26.4	21.6	+4.7	1752	+5.3	−10.2	+15.5	1886	−0.69	+2.01	−2.70	608(80th)
2007	6-4	1737	28.3	18.2	+10.1	1693	+6.5	−11.4	+18.0	1949	−0.75	+1.80	−2.55	608(80th)
2006	9-3	1719	23.8	20.2	+3.5	1628	+1.7	−7.3	+9.0	1724	+0.67	+2.32	−1.65	574(70th)
2005	5-5	1634	20.6	18.4	+2.2	1506	−4.5	−7.9	+3.5	1587	−2.56	+1.34	−3.90	551(62nd)
2004	11-3	2049	24.6	14.9	+9.6	1597	+2.3	−12.6	+14.9	1873	+1.34	+3.02	−1.68	653(88th)
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.