| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Saginaw |
50% (0) | W 56-7 | 2467 | +22.8 | −15.8 | +0.12 | — |
| 2 | Fort Worth Paschal |
93% (+25) | W 41-13 | 1535 | −0.3 | −1.7 | +0.02 | — |
| 3 | @Flower Mound (5-1) 1720 |
41% (-4) | L 24-42 | 1360 | +5.7 | +11.3 | — | −0.73 |
| 4 | @Justin Northwest (0-6) 1148 |
73% (+9) | W 31-28 | 1340 | −1.8 | +4.6 | +0.06 | — |
| 5 | Keller (6-0) 1806 |
26% (-10) | L 53-54 | 1820 | +20.0 | +7.2 | — | −0.63 |
| 7 | Keller Timber Creek (3-3) 1510 |
56% (+2) | L 21-35 | 1014 | −11.8 | +7.6 | — | −0.87 |
| 8 | @Northwest Eaton (2-4) 1535 |
32% (-7) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | @Keller Central (4-2) 1731 |
17% (-15) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | Byron Nelson (3-3) 1653 |
22% (-12) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | #14Southlake Carroll (4-2) 2362 |
< 2% (-41) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#154
was #131
Record
3-3
1-2 district
Elo
1350
#154 of 249
OVR Grade
74.3
#154 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
79
#83 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
73.2
#142 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1589
#107 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 4-6A
| 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 Fort Worth Boswell’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2022
8-3
Rating 583 (73rd)
#2 · 2023
7-4
Rating 537 (58th)
#3 · 2021
6-5
Rating 515 (50th)
#4 · 2005
5-5
Rating 479 (36th)
#5 · 2025
4-6
Rating 443 (26th)
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.