| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | #34Austin Vandegrift (4-2) 2056 |
30% (-8) | L 21-28 | 1793 | +1.9 | −9.8 | — | −0.21 |
| 2 | San Antonio Reagan (3-2-1) 1744 |
74% (+10) | W 63-0 | 3131 | +40.3 | −24.9 | +0.32 | — |
| 3 | San Antonio Taft (4-3) 1192 |
95% (+28) | W 56-7 | 2341 | +21.0 | −12.6 | +0.09 | — |
| 4 | @San Antonio Sotomayor (5-2) 1586 |
88% (+19) | W 49-0 | 2741 | +26.2 | −23.5 | +0.20 | — |
| 5 | San Antonio O'Connor (3-3) 1131 |
98% (+36) | W 44-0 | 2327 | +12.9 | −20.2 | +0.05 | — |
| 6 | @San Antonio Holmes (1-5) 523 |
> 98% (+58) | W 70-7 | 2170 | +27.4 | +0.6 | +0.00 | — |
| 8 | San Antonio Stevens (2-5) 800 |
> 98% (+49) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | @San Antonio Warren (4-3) 1317 |
95% (+28) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | San Antonio Marshall (1-5) 693 |
> 98% (+53) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | @San Antonio Harlan (5-1) 1927 |
61% (+4) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#41
was #41
Record
5-1
4-0 district
Elo
2028
#41 of 249
OVR Grade
84.6
#41 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
90.2
#11 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
87.8
#28 of 249 in 6A
Perf
2417
#17 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 29-6A
| 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 San Antonio Brennan’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2014
11-1
Rating 730 (96th)
#2 · 2022
12-2
Rating 722 (96th)
#3 · 2021
13-1
Rating 720 (95th)
#4 · 2024
10-2
Rating 688 (93rd)
#5 · 2025
10-2
Rating 686 (92nd)
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.