← Back
CLASS 6A · District 8-6A

Hurst Bell Blue Raiders

Enrollment: 3,203 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 3
Rank
#166
was #155
Record
3-3
2-1 district
Elo
1286
#166 of 249
OVR Grade
73.4
#166 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
72.6
#150 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
80.2
#71 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1569
#110 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk Opponent (Rec) Elo Proj WP% Result Perf AOS ADS WQ LQ
1
Garland Rowlett (3-3) 1384
 23% (-11) W 27-7 1894 −3.9 −19.7 +0.21 —
2
Plano West (2-4) 1342
 58% (+3) L 21-31 1171 −4.2 +9.0 — −0.89
3
@Garland Sachse (6-0) 1785
 17% (-15) L 11-15 1780 −12.3 −23.5 — −0.64
5
@Irving Nimitz (1-5) 325
 > 98% (+39) W 58-7 1704 +9.4 +1.2 +0.00 —
6
Grand Prairie (3-3) 962
 80% (+13) W 37-6 1543 −0.1 −1.8 +0.03 —
7
@Fort Worth Haltom (3-3) 1404
 55% (+2) L 17-24 1321 −9.1 −1.9 — −0.90
8
Irving (0-6) 436
 97% (+34) — — — — — —
9
@South Grand Prairie (4-2) 1730
 13% (-18) — — — — — —
10
Irving MacArthur (3-3) 1027
 75% (+10) — — — — — —
11
@Euless Trinity (4-2) 1869
 8% (-23) — — — — — —
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 8-6A

Rk Team (Enroll Rk) OVR/Elo Overall District PPG PAPG ProjRec PO% Bracket
1 58
Trojans
82.2
1869
 4-2 3-0 30.5 19.3 6.8-0.2 > 98% D1
2 79
Warriors
80.1
1730
 4-2 2-1 30.2 20.2 5.6-1.4 > 98% D1
3 144
Buffaloes
75.2
1404
 3-3 3-0 31.3 19.7 5.2-1.9 > 98% D2
4 166
Blue Raiders
73.4
1286
 3-3 2-1 28.5 15.0 3.9-3.1 84% D2
5 204
Cardinals
69.5
1027
 3-3 1-2 28.2 29.3 2.9-4.1 16.7% —
6 209
Gophers
68.5
962
 3-3 1-2 14.8 27.3 2.4-4.6 < 2% —
7 246
Tigers
60.5
436
 0-6 0-3 8.2 54.7 0.8-6.2 < 2% —
8 247
Vikings
58.9
325
 1-5 0-3 21.0 33.0 0.4-6.6 < 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 Hurst Bell’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2010
6-5
Rating 578 (71st)
#2 · 2011
6-5
Rating 572 (70th)
#3 · 2008
7-4
Rating 571 (69th)
#4 · 2012
7-4
Rating 560 (65th)
#5 · 2013
7-4
Rating 542 (59th)

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 1379 23.7 30.6 −6.9 1562 −4.8 −1.4 −3.4 1416 −1.46 +0.84 −2.30 502(45th)
2024 2-8 1203 17.9 40.6 −22.7 1653 −8.8 +8.0 −16.9 1079 −3.76 +0.12 −3.89 441(25th)
2023 7-3 1470 29.4 19.1 +10.3 1267 −6.0 −6.7 +0.8 1519 −0.96 +0.85 −1.81 527(54th)
2022 6-4 1352 27.7 19.5 +8.2 1309 −4.3 −5.3 +1.0 1524 −2.14 +0.34 −2.48 510(48th)
2021 2-8 1025 13.3 32.1 −18.8 1392 −18.8 +2.9 −21.6 959 −6.00 +0.04 −6.05 401(15th)
2020 2-7 1120 12.4 27.4 −15.0 1327 −17.2 +4.5 −21.7 958 −5.42 +0.18 −5.60 405(16th)
2019 3-7 1156 18.1 29.4 −11.3 1567 −10.3 −1.0 −9.3 1268 −3.95 +0.50 −4.46 455(29th)
2018 1-9 1081 13.3 30.6 −17.3 1689 −10.4 −0.6 −9.9 1253 −4.81 +0.09 −4.90 447(27th)
2017 1-9 1149 20.2 41.1 −20.9 1822 −0.8 +7.8 −8.7 1283 −4.97 +0.05 −5.03 468(32nd)
2016 3-7 1462 17.6 30.5 −12.9 1698 −7.2 −2.9 −4.2 1394 −2.08 +0.58 −2.66 501(44th)
2015 1-9 1132 14.8 40.2 −25.4 1754 −9.2 +7.0 −16.3 1093 −4.21 +0.02 −4.23 433(23rd)
2014 1-9 1252 14.3 42.2 −27.9 1867 −7.0 +5.3 −12.3 1193 −4.09 +0.01 −4.11 469(33rd)
2013 7-4 1612 27.7 20.3 +7.5 1408 −1.8 −5.7 +3.8 1596 −0.83 +0.71 −1.54 542(59th)
2012 7-4 1547 32.9 19.0 +13.9 1443 +3.7 −7.2 +10.8 1771 −1.14 +0.67 −1.82 560(65th)
2011 6-5 1668 31.1 22.8 +8.3 1615 +5.2 −5.2 +10.4 1761 −1.08 +0.62 −1.70 572(70th)
2010 6-5 1626 30.0 21.0 +9.0 1617 +4.8 −8.4 +13.1 1829 −1.16 +0.93 −2.10 578(71st)
2009 3-7 1221 18.5 27.1 −8.6 1489 −10.4 +0.7 −11.1 1223 −4.95 +0.13 −5.08 459(30th)
2008 7-4 1730 29.5 22.9 +6.5 1561 +4.2 −3.8 +8.1 1701 −0.39 +0.82 −1.21 571(69th)
2007 6-5 1530 24.2 26.5 −2.4 1588 +2.2 0.0 +2.2 1554 −1.56 +0.62 −2.18 535(57th)
2006 6-5 1655 19.6 22.2 −2.5 1557 −4.3 −4.0 −0.3 1493 −1.48 +1.17 −2.64 538(58th)
2005 3-7 1342 15.9 28.3 −12.4 1680 −5.6 −1.2 −4.4 1389 −3.18 +0.54 −3.72 497(43rd)
2004 3-7 1398 19.8 26.7 −6.9 1580 −3.9 −0.8 −3.1 1423 −4.01 +0.49 −4.51 508(48th)
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.