← Back
CLASS 6A · District 5-6A

Flower Mound Marcus Marauders

Enrollment: 3,004 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 4
Rank
#140
was #111
Record
2-4
0-3 district
Elo
1424
#140 of 249
OVR Grade
75.5
#140 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
74.8
#127 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
70.9
#170 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1373
#146 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk Opponent (Rec) Elo Proj WP% Result Perf AOS ADS WQ LQ
1
Justin Northwest (0-6) 1148
 81% (+14) W 41-38 1340 +8.2 +14.6 +0.10 —
2
@#48Arlington Martin (6-0) 1961
 54% (+1) L 17-22 1847 −4.6 −18.4 — −0.69
3
Richardson Pearce (0-6) 1004
 91% (+22) W 45-14 1743 +8.8 −1.0 +0.04 —
5
@#9Lewisville (3-3) 2457
 7% (-25) L 7-40 1707 −1.9 −10.2 — −0.15
6
Lewisville Hebron (4-2) 1854
 41% (-3) L 28-56 1017 +6.1 +25.5 — −0.64
7
@Flower Mound (5-1) 1720
 43% (-3) L 0-49 585 −18.3 +18.3 — −0.73
8
Denton Braswell (5-1) 1736
 21% (-12) — — — — — —
9
@Little Elm (3-3) 1426
 50% (0) — — — — — —
10
@#19Denton Guyer (4-2) 2248
 3% (-33) — — — — — —
11
Frisco Wakeland (2-4) 1457
 47% (-1) — — — — — —
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 5-6A

Rk Team (Enroll Rk) OVR/Elo Overall District PPG PAPG ProjRec PO% Bracket
1 9
Fighting Farmers
91
2457
 3-3 3-0 45.7 14.2 6.8-0.2 > 98% D1
2 19
Wildcats
87.9
2248
 4-2 2-1 32.5 21.5 5.7-1.3 > 98% D2
3 60
Hawks
81.9
1854
 4-2 3-0 25.3 26.2 4.5-2.5 87.7% D1
4 75
Bengals
80.2
1736
 5-1 2-1 30.8 26.7 4-3 84.9% D2
5 81
Jaguars
79.9
1720
 5-1 2-1 31.2 16.2 3.2-3.8 24% —
6 131
Wolverines
76
1457
 2-4 0-3 16.3 35.0 1.6-5.4 3.1% —
7 140
Marauders
75.5
1424
 2-4 0-3 23.0 36.5 1.2-5.8 < 2% —
8 139
Lobos
75.5
1426
 3-3 0-3 29.8 24.2 1-6 < 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 Flower Mound Marcus’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2011
10-2
Rating 688 (93rd)
#2 · 2015
10-2
Rating 685 (92nd)
#3 · 2010
8-3
Rating 671 (90th)
#4 · 2009
7-3
Rating 670 (90th)
#5 · 2020
9-1
Rating 661 (89th)

Team Performance History

Year Record Final
Elo		 PPG PAPG Margin Elo
SOS		 AOS ADS DOM Perf RQ WQ LQ All-Time
Rating (%ile)
2025 5-5 1696 28.7 28.0 +0.7 1588 +3.4 −1.7 +5.2 1629 −1.28 +0.59 −1.86 558(65th)
2024 6-4 1718 30.8 27.9 +2.9 1731 +4.8 −6.9 +11.7 1793 −0.22 +1.14 −1.35 583(73rd)
2023 4-7 1520 28.5 33.5 −4.9 1764 +4.8 −0.3 +5.2 1630 −2.44 +0.63 −3.08 550(62nd)
2022 6-5 1847 24.7 25.1 −0.4 1846 +2.6 −11.1 +13.6 1841 +0.21 +1.36 −1.14 609(80th)
2021 8-3 2072 32.8 21.5 +11.3 1665 +7.8 −12.0 +19.9 1997 +1.03 +2.63 −1.60 634(85th)
2020 9-1 2054 46.2 22.7 +23.5 1652 +19.7 −10.1 +29.8 2246 +2.79 +3.23 −0.44 661(89th)
2019 11-2 1925 35.5 21.5 +14.1 1522 +8.1 −7.2 +15.2 1881 +1.99 +2.97 −0.97 615(81st)
2018 5-5 1561 26.5 24.8 +1.7 1480 −1.3 −2.9 +1.6 1539 −2.00 +0.60 −2.60 528(55th)
2017 4-6 1571 18.7 21.8 −3.1 1853 −2.0 −12.3 +10.3 1756 −1.29 +1.70 −2.99 572(69th)
2016 5-5 1787 33.4 35.0 −1.6 1857 +10.9 −0.9 +11.8 1795 −0.47 +1.87 −2.34 596(76th)
2015 10-2 2121 33.5 21.8 +11.7 1870 +11.4 −14.6 +26.0 2149 +3.90 +4.08 −0.17 685(92nd)
2014 5-5 1699 24.0 24.9 −0.9 1879 +1.3 −11.9 +13.2 1831 −0.27 +1.15 −1.42 595(76th)
2013 2-9 1527 14.5 26.4 −11.9 1886 −4.7 −8.5 +3.9 1597 −3.12 +0.80 −3.92 551(62nd)
2012 4-7 1915 18.4 23.5 −5.2 1841 −0.9 −10.1 +9.3 1731 −1.42 +1.45 −2.87 600(77th)
2011 10-2 2144 37.6 22.2 +15.4 1787 +15.0 −12.0 +27.1 2177 +3.15 +3.50 −0.36 688(93rd)
2010 8-3 2061 36.5 25.0 +11.5 1857 +14.0 −11.2 +25.3 2131 +2.41 +3.48 −1.07 671(90th)
2009 7-3 2069 39.1 26.9 +12.2 1857 +15.5 −9.5 +25.0 2125 +1.73 +2.28 −0.56 670(90th)
2008 5-6 1901 27.9 23.5 +4.5 1879 +8.6 −10.4 +19.0 1975 +0.11 +1.89 −1.78 638(85th)
2007 9-3 1813 24.1 13.9 +10.2 1510 +0.2 −12.6 +12.8 1820 +0.48 +2.18 −1.69 608(80th)
2006 5-5 1403 24.8 23.5 +1.3 1523 −0.8 −3.0 +2.2 1554 −2.24 +0.87 −3.10 523(53rd)
2005 5-4 1590 22.9 20.9 +2.0 1642 +0.3 −7.8 +8.1 1702 −0.95 +0.79 −1.75 560(66th)
2004 3-7 1421 19.5 23.8 −4.3 1605 −4.6 −4.0 −0.6 1485 −4.24 +0.75 −4.99 518(52nd)
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.