| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Killeen Harker Heights (4-2) 1909 |
24% (-11) | L 50-53 | 1671 | +18.7 | +11.8 | — | −0.38 |
| 2 | @Converse Judson (2-3) 1513 |
69% (+8) | W 67-41 | 2138 | +24.9 | −0.6 | +0.18 | — |
| 3 | @Copperas Cove (5-2) 1566 |
81% (+14) | W 64-21 | 2675 | +31.6 | −15.4 | +0.13 | — |
| 4 | Temple (1-6) 1448 |
61% (+4) | W 53-14 | 2449 | +19.0 | −19.0 | +0.33 | — |
| 5 | @Georgetown East View (2-4) 1209 |
94% (+26) | W 61-7 | 2585 | +27.4 | −16.0 | +0.07 | — |
| 6 | Cedar Park Vista Ridge (2-5) 1360 |
89% (+20) | W 68-10 | 2635 | +23.8 | −21.6 | +0.13 | — |
| 7 | 35% (-6) | L 35-37 | 2143 | +16.9 | −8.9 | — | −0.28 | |
| 8 | Leander (1-5) 798 |
> 98% (+44) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | @Leander Rouse (4-3) 1600 |
77% (+12) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | #34Austin Vandegrift (4-2) 2056 |
34% (-6) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#55
was #51
Record
5-2
2-1 district
Elo
1894
#55 of 249
OVR Grade
82.5
#55 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
91.3
#8 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
83.5
#43 of 249 in 6A
Perf
2328
#23 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 24-6A
| 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 Hutto’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2025
9-3
Rating 590 (75th)
#2 · 2021
5-6
Rating 556 (64th)
#3 · 2022
5-5
Rating 544 (60th)
#4 · 2023
4-7
Rating 510 (48th)
#5 · 2020
4-5
Rating 507 (47th)
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.