← Back

CLASS 6A · District 11-6A

North Crowley Panthers

Enrollment: 3,049 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 4

Rank

#1

was #3

Record

6-0

3-0 district

Elo

2885

#1 of 249

OVR Grade

97.5

#1 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

93.2

#6 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

99.2

#2 of 249 in 6A

Perf

2857

#3 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
1	#45Aledo (3-3) 1975	86% (+18)	W 26-0	2815	+14.4	−38.2	+0.79	—
2	#14Southlake Carroll (4-2) 2362	69% (+8)	W 40-10	3035	+26.2	−35.2	+0.92	—
3	#13Humble Summer Creek (4-3) 2373	78% (+12)	W 41-20	2955	+32.4	−25.9	+0.91	—
4	@#7Duncanville (3-3) 2485	71% (+9)	W 47-30	2912	+42.1	−14.4	+0.94	—
5	Crowley (2-4) 1433	> 98% (+54)	W 35-14	2248	+11.7	−18.2	+0.15	—
7	@#4Waxahachie (5-1) 2612	60% (+4)	W 42-17	3177	+28.4	−38.6	+0.97	—
8	Mansfield Lake Ridge (4-2) 1880	> 98% (+40)	—	—	—	—	—	—
9	@Dallas Skyline (1-5) 1070	> 98% (+73)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	@Mansfield (2-4) 1536	> 98% (+54)	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	Red Oak (4-2) 1711	> 98% (+47)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 11-6A

Rk			Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1		1	North Crowley (4) Panthers	97.5 2885	6-0	3-0	38.5	15.2	7-0	> 98%	D2
2		4	Waxahachie (3) Indians	93.4 2612	5-1	2-1	47.3	25.2	5.6-1.4	> 98%	D1
3		7	Duncanville (1) Panthers	91.5 2485	3-3	2-1	29.7	18.0	5.3-1.7	> 98%	D1
4		56	Mansfield Lake Ridge (5) Eagles	82.3 1880	4-2	2-1	38.7	40.2	3.6-3.4	67.8%	D2
5		83	Red Oak (8) Hawks	79.8 1711	4-2	2-1	26.2	27.2	3.3-3.7	32%	—
6		135	Crowley (7) Eagles	75.6 1433	2-4	1-2	27.8	27.5	1.5-5.5	< 2%	—
7		113	Mansfield (6) Tigers	77.1 1536	2-4	0-3	31.2	35.2	1.5-5.5	< 2%	—
8		197	Dallas Skyline (2) Raiders	70.1 1070	1-5	0-3	18.8	42.2	0.2-6.8	< 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 North Crowley’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2024

16-0

Rating 935 (100th)

#2 · 2025

12-2

Rating 754 (98th)

#3 · 2023

14-1

Rating 748 (97th)

#4 · 2022

12-1

Rating 640 (86th)

#5 · 2005

9-2

Rating 599 (77th)

Team Performance History

Year	Record	Final Elo	PPG	PAPG	Margin	Elo SOS	AOS	ADS	DOM	Perf	RQ	WQ	LQ	All-Time Rating (%ile)
2025	12-2	2456	47.1	19.1	+27.9	1783	+20.8	−18.2	+39.0	2474	+3.96	+4.52	−0.56	754(98th)
2024	16-0	2956	54.0	17.7	+36.3	1893	+30.8	−21.1	+51.9	2797	+8.69	+8.69	0.00	935(100th)
2023	14-1	2340	52.5	17.2	+35.3	1565	+23.4	−13.8	+37.2	2430	+4.12	+4.15	−0.02	748(97th)
2022	12-1	2008	40.0	19.4	+20.6	1463	+11.1	−7.9	+18.9	1974	+2.56	+2.66	−0.10	640(86th)
2021	7-4	1686	37.5	24.5	+13.0	1528	+7.9	−4.8	+12.7	1816	−0.64	+0.51	−1.15	575(70th)
2020	6-3	1566	22.3	16.0	+6.3	1398	−6.8	−7.6	+0.8	1520	−1.23	+0.69	−1.92	537(58th)
2019	3-7	1313	18.2	36.2	−18.0	1708	−7.3	+1.5	−8.7	1281	−3.23	+0.16	−3.40	472(34th)
2018	2-8	1025	36.6	44.5	−7.9	1572	+8.2	+14.6	−6.4	1340	−5.01	+0.04	−5.05	453(29th)
2017	4-6	1459	30.9	30.1	+0.8	1547	+3.6	+0.8	+2.9	1571	−2.40	+0.65	−3.06	523(53rd)
2016	1-8	945	17.0	35.3	−18.3	1528	−11.0	+6.6	−17.6	1060	−5.52	+0.03	−5.55	409(17th)
2015	3-7	1198	26.2	36.6	−10.4	1410	−5.8	+7.1	−12.9	1177	−4.64	+0.22	−4.86	447(27th)
2014	4-6	1068	29.5	35.4	−5.9	1359	−5.5	+6.0	−11.6	1211	−3.40	+0.08	−3.47	441(25th)
2013	0-10	842	9.1	39.5	−30.4	1524	−21.2	+8.2	−29.4	764	−6.63	0.00	−6.63	362(9th)
2012	3-7	1157	13.3	32.3	−19.0	1527	−15.3	+1.7	−17.0	1076	−3.80	+0.07	−3.87	433(23rd)
2011	3-7	1182	29.8	32.0	−2.2	1444	+0.5	+5.1	−4.5	1387	−4.14	+0.06	−4.20	478(36th)
2010	2-8	963	18.2	40.0	−21.8	1504	−11.0	+10.3	−21.3	967	−5.43	+0.05	−5.48	404(16th)
2009	1-9	918	21.7	42.2	−20.5	1548	−6.7	+12.5	−19.1	1022	−6.45	+0.04	−6.49	406(16th)
2008	4-7	1302	16.4	21.1	−4.7	1444	−11.2	−6.0	−5.2	1370	−3.77	+0.12	−3.89	487(39th)
2007	3-7	1251	17.0	26.1	−9.1	1396	−11.1	+2.0	−13.0	1174	−4.63	+0.09	−4.72	458(30th)
2006	3-7	1204	23.6	26.3	−2.7	1409	−5.4	+1.8	−7.1	1322	−5.00	+0.08	−5.09	474(35th)
2005	9-2	1728	32.2	13.8	+18.4	1347	+2.0	−9.9	+11.9	1799	−0.02	+1.27	−1.29	599(77th)
2004	7-4	1520	31.5	19.8	+11.6	1367	+2.4	−3.9	+6.3	1658	−1.84	+0.93	−2.77	550(62nd)
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.