← Back

CLASS 6A · District 32-6A

Harlingen Cardinals

Enrollment: 2,545 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 3

Rank

#138

was #143

Record

4-2

1-0 district

Elo

1428

#138 of 249

OVR Grade

75.5

#138 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

74

#134 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

75.3

#116 of 249 in 6A

Perf

1472

#132 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
1	McAllen Rowe	85% (+16)	W 42-13	1685	+3.2	−4.2	+0.03	—
2	@Harlingen South	59% (+3)	W 49-3	2292	+13.8	−17.8	+0.11	—
3	@Eagle Pass (2-4) 1033	85% (+17)	W 38-28	1146	−2.5	+11.7	+0.05	—
4	@Corpus Christi Miller	62% (+5)	L 28-29	1457	−0.4	+1.4	—	−0.84
5	Midland (4-3) 1670	50% (0)	L 7-44	837	−14.6	+12.0	—	−0.79
7	PSJA (2-4) 934	87% (+18)	W 24-7	1413	−8.5	−5.0	+0.02	—
8	@PSJA North (5-1) 1798	18% (-15)	—	—	—	—	—	—
9	Brownsville Veterans Memorial (4-2) 1432	50% (0)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	@San Benito (4-2) 1282	65% (+6)	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	Los Fresnos (3-3) 1360	57% (+3)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 32-6A

Rk			Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1		67	PSJA North (6) Raiders	81.1 1798	5-1	1-0	45.5	19.7	4.5-0.5	> 98%	D2
2		138	Harlingen (3) Cardinals	75.5 1428	4-2	1-0	31.3	20.7	2.9-2.1	85.9%	D2
3		167	San Benito (2) Greyhounds	73.3 1282	4-2	1-0	20.3	25.7	2.7-2.3	76.9%	D1
4		150	Los Fresnos (1) Falcons	74.5 1360	3-3	0-1	34.0	34.7	2.3-2.7	67.2%	D1
5		136	Brownsville Veterans Memorial (4) Chargers	75.6 1432	4-2	0-1	28.3	29.3	2.1-2.9	66.3%	—
6		211	PSJA (5) Bears	68.1 934	2-4	0-1	18.2	23.5	0.5-4.5	3.7%	—
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 Harlingen’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2011

13-1

Rating 673 (91st)

#2 · 2009

12-1

Rating 647 (87th)

#3 · 2022

12-1

Rating 642 (86th)

#4 · 2013

10-2

Rating 633 (85th)

#5 · 2010

12-1

Rating 631 (84th)

Team Performance History

Year	Record	Final Elo	PPG	PAPG	Margin	Elo SOS	AOS	ADS	DOM	Perf	RQ	WQ	LQ	All-Time Rating (%ile)
2025	5-7	1288	26.5	31.0	−4.5	1292	−5.5	+7.6	−13.0	1174	−5.00	+0.57	−5.58	472(34th)
2024	5-6	1133	20.0	25.6	−5.6	1314	−10.1	+2.7	−12.8	1179	−4.41	+0.27	−4.68	448(27th)
2023	8-4	1529	27.6	18.6	+9.0	1235	−4.8	−2.9	−1.9	1453	−2.47	+0.43	−2.90	536(57th)
2022	12-1	1937	39.8	16.3	+23.5	1387	+11.4	−8.8	+20.2	2004	+1.50	+1.62	−0.13	642(86th)
2021	8-4	1648	29.2	15.4	+13.8	1428	+2.8	−7.7	+10.5	1762	−1.37	+1.25	−2.62	573(70th)
2020	6-1	1817	30.9	11.4	+19.4	1333	+0.3	−12.2	+12.5	1813	+0.60	+1.22	−0.62	—
2019	9-2	1769	35.9	24.3	+11.6	1486	+7.2	−3.6	+10.8	1770	+0.42	+1.16	−0.74	578(71st)
2018	5-5	1418	27.9	22.3	+5.6	1364	−1.0	−1.6	+0.5	1513	−3.36	+0.30	−3.67	512(49th)
2017	5-5	1422	21.7	22.3	−0.6	1458	−6.3	−3.8	−2.5	1437	−2.40	+1.17	−3.57	503(45th)
2016	8-3	1791	29.7	21.0	+8.7	1466	+3.4	−2.6	+6.0	1649	−0.35	+1.37	−1.72	569(68th)
2015	10-3	1844	35.6	18.6	+17.0	1370	+5.0	−7.5	+12.5	1812	+0.21	+1.42	−1.21	602(78th)
2014	6-5	1429	20.4	19.2	+1.2	1278	−10.1	−2.2	−7.9	1302	−3.59	+0.22	−3.81	485(39th)
2013	10-2	1766	43.4	11.6	+31.8	1166	+8.3	−9.5	+17.8	1945	−0.40	+0.77	−1.17	633(85th)
2012	8-4	1589	33.5	17.2	+16.3	1111	+1.4	−0.2	+1.6	1539	−2.52	+0.36	−2.88	549(62nd)
2011	13-1	2028	50.9	17.4	+33.5	1338	+19.9	−7.1	+27.0	2175	+1.99	+2.36	−0.37	673(91st)
2010	12-1	1993	46.2	16.9	+29.2	1169	+12.5	−3.7	+16.2	1904	+0.55	+1.12	−0.56	631(84th)
2009	12-1	1914	43.8	13.6	+30.2	1333	+12.9	−9.6	+22.5	2062	+1.36	+1.60	−0.24	647(87th)
2008	10-3	1650	36.1	16.9	+19.2	1250	+5.2	−3.7	+8.8	1721	−1.27	+0.81	−2.08	582(72nd)
2007	7-4	1383	19.1	13.6	+5.5	1257	−10.0	−5.2	−4.8	1381	−2.77	+0.53	−3.30	511(48th)
2006	6-5	1271	20.7	18.8	+1.9	1143	−9.5	+1.7	−11.2	1219	−4.30	+0.12	−4.42	467(32nd)
2005	10-3	1681	33.3	22.3	+11.0	1272	+5.6	+2.9	+2.8	1569	−1.25	+1.03	−2.28	556(64th)
2004	9-3	1390	34.8	19.2	+15.7	1105	+0.2	+0.7	−0.5	1488	−2.16	+0.34	−2.50	516(51st)
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.