← Back

CLASS 6A · District 27-6A

Converse Wagner Thunderbirds

Enrollment: 2,295 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 7

Rank

#202

was #199

Record

1-4

0-3 district

Elo

1053

#202 of 249

OVR Grade

69.9

#202 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

68.4

#188 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

69.9

#174 of 249 in 6A

Perf

1114

#183 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
2	@San Antonio O'Connor (3-3) 1131	67% (+7)	L 14-21	1052	−17.1	+0.8	—	−0.97
3	Del Rio (0-6) 547	84% (+16)	W 27-7	966	−16.8	+4.6	+0.01	—
4	@#20Cibolo Steele (4-1-1) 2221	< 2% (-44)	L 19-56	1322	+0.3	+7.5	—	−0.19
5	Converse Judson (2-3) 1513	15% (-16)	L 27-56	763	−15.1	+14.4	—	−0.81
7	@San Antonio East Central (5-1) 1731	6% (-26)	L 21-34	1466	+1.5	+2.8	—	−0.63
8	New Braunfels Canyon (3-3) 1358	22% (-12)	—	—	—	—	—	—
9	@Schertz Clemens (4-2) 1479	14% (-17)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	@San Marcos (0-6) 1254	30% (-8)	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	San Antonio Pieper (3-3) 1642	8% (-24)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 27-6A

Rk			Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1		20	Cibolo Steele (2) Knights	87.5 2221	4-1	3-0	46.5	23.5	6.8-0.2	> 98%	D1
2		76	San Antonio East Central (1) Hornets	80.1 1731	5-1	3-0	32.8	16.5	5.3-1.7	> 98%	D1
3		94	San Antonio Pieper (8) Warriors	78.7 1642	3-3	2-1	40.3	36.2	4.8-2.2	92.5%	D2
4		120	Converse Judson (5) Rockets	76.8 1513	2-3	2-1	43.4	47.2	3.8-3.2	77.8%	D2
5		125	Schertz Clemens (3) Buffaloes	76.3 1479	4-2	1-2	32.0	30.3	3-4	17.3%	—
6		152	New Braunfels Canyon (4) Cougars	74.5 1358	3-3	1-2	14.3	20.7	2.4-4.6	10.2%	—
7		169	San Marcos (6) Rattlers	72.9 1254	0-6	0-3	15.5	40.0	1.4-5.7	2.6%	—
8		202	Converse Wagner (7) Thunderbirds	69.9 1053	1-4	0-3	21.6	34.8	0.7-6.3	< 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 Converse Wagner’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2009

8-3

Rating 601 (78th)

#2 · 2011

7-4

Rating 596 (76th)

#3 · 2010

7-7

Rating 591 (75th)

#4 · 2021

4-6

Rating 590 (75th)

#5 · 2020

4-4

Rating 582 (72nd)

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	1282	6.5	53.5	−47.0	1999	−7.6	+15.4	−23.0	925	−1.08	0.00	−1.08	—
2024	1-1	1478	23.0	26.0	−3.0	1312	−12.0	+0.3	−12.3	1193	−0.42	+0.02	−0.45	—
2023	1-1	1440	38.0	26.0	+12.0	1505	+7.1	−4.5	+11.6	1790	−0.35	+0.03	−0.37	—
2022	1-1	1521	24.5	39.0	−14.5	1838	+3.3	−0.2	+3.5	1587	−0.16	+0.14	−0.30	—
2021	4-6	1723	32.7	21.4	+11.3	1641	+9.6	−6.6	+16.2	1904	−1.78	+0.83	−2.60	590(75th)
2020	4-4	1596	38.6	35.5	+3.1	1827	+17.6	+2.3	+15.3	1884	+0.16	+1.54	−1.37	582(72nd)
2019	0-1	1416	14.0	52.0	−38.0	2380	−0.8	+0.3	−1.1	1471	−0.07	0.00	−0.07	—
2018	1-0	1414	60.0	21.0	+39.0	1169	+30.2	+2.1	+28.1	2202	+0.07	+0.07	0.00	—
2017	4-6	1305	23.0	33.5	−10.5	1662	−0.2	+3.1	−3.3	1416	−1.66	+0.47	−2.13	489(40th)
2016	4-6	1333	25.6	30.3	−4.7	1693	+1.1	−1.7	+2.8	1571	−2.12	+0.34	−2.46	512(49th)
2015	2-8	1335	34.0	45.8	−11.8	1807	+11.0	+10.6	+0.5	1511	−3.17	+0.15	−3.33	512(49th)
2014	3-7	1295	17.8	26.7	−8.9	1649	−4.3	−1.7	−2.5	1437	−3.63	+0.24	−3.86	491(41st)
2013	0-9	1251	16.7	39.8	−23.1	1857	−7.0	+1.4	−8.4	1291	−5.32	0.00	−5.32	482(37th)
2012	6-5	1827	23.0	21.4	+1.6	1633	−0.9	−10.2	+9.3	1732	−0.57	+1.32	−1.90	580(72nd)
2011	7-4	1882	24.2	20.8	+3.4	1704	+2.5	−9.5	+11.9	1798	+0.67	+2.65	−1.98	596(76th)
2010	7-7	1774	22.9	22.1	+0.7	1704	+0.1	−8.1	+8.2	1705	−1.36	+1.75	−3.11	591(75th)
2009	8-3	1754	32.5	14.3	+18.2	1389	+3.9	−9.3	+13.3	1832	+0.14	+1.46	−1.33	601(78th)
2008	6-5	1546	31.0	26.0	+5.0	1432	+3.9	+2.1	+1.8	1544	−2.03	+0.36	−2.40	533(56th)
2007	4-6	1506	24.4	30.6	−6.2	1715	+1.4	−0.6	+2.1	1552	−2.36	+0.95	−3.31	532(56th)
2006	1-9	1176	15.2	35.0	−19.8	1687	−6.5	+5.5	−12.0	1199	−4.87	+0.02	−4.89	455(29th)
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.