| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Antonio East Central (5-1) 1731 |
92% (+24) | W 30-14 | 2191 | +10.5 | −17.2 | +0.12 | — |
| 2 | 33% (-7) | L 7-42 | 1369 | −9.6 | −4.3 | — | −0.22 | |
| 3 | @San Antonio Stevens (2-5) 800 |
> 98% (+43) | W 58-0 | 2013 | +14.9 | −5.7 | +0.01 | — |
| 4 | San Antonio Warren (4-3) 1317 |
94% (+26) | W 41-7 | 2144 | +7.3 | −18.4 | +0.07 | — |
| 5 | @San Antonio Marshall (1-5) 693 |
> 98% (+47) | W 59-14 | 1640 | +10.5 | +4.9 | +0.01 | — |
| 7 | San Antonio Taft (4-3) 1192 |
95% (+29) | W 54-6 | 2316 | +19.0 | −13.6 | +0.06 | — |
| 8 | @San Antonio Sotomayor (5-2) 1586 |
81% (+14) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | San Antonio O'Connor (3-3) 1131 |
97% (+32) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | @San Antonio Holmes (1-5) 523 |
> 98% (+56) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | #41San Antonio Brennan (5-1) 2028 |
39% (-4) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#53
was #53
Record
5-1
4-0 district
Elo
1927
#53 of 249
OVR Grade
83
#53 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
81.2
#67 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
82.7
#55 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1945
#55 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 Harlan’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
#1 · 2025
11-1
Rating 637 (85th)
#2 · 2024
12-2
Rating 615 (81st)
#3 · 2023
12-1
Rating 612 (80th)
#4 · 2022
10-3
Rating 588 (75th)
#5 · 2021
6-5
Rating 516 (50th)
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.