| Wk | Opponent (Rec) Elo | Proj WP% | Result | Perf | AOS | ADS | WQ | LQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Antonio Alamo Heights |
36% (-6) | L 14-43 | 1175 | −6.0 | +7.0 | — | −0.55 |
| 2 | Buda Johnson (2-5) 1279 |
76% (+11) | W 56-13 | 2266 | +19.1 | −11.6 | +0.10 | — |
| 3 | @Temple (1-6) 1448 |
53% (+1) | L 49-55 | 1324 | +15.0 | +22.0 | — | −0.74 |
| 4 | @San Marcos (0-6) 1254 |
70% (+8) | W 52-0 | 2350 | +15.2 | −18.8 | +0.11 | — |
| 5 | #20Cibolo Steele (4-1-1) 2221 |
9% (-22) | L 28-64 | 1347 | +9.3 | +15.5 | — | −0.19 |
| 7 | @Converse Judson (2-3) 1513 |
59% (+4) | W 43-42 | 1513 | +0.9 | +0.4 | +0.21 | — |
| 8 | San Antonio East Central (5-1) 1731 |
41% (-4) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 9 | @New Braunfels Canyon (3-3) 1358 |
77% (+11) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 10 | Schertz Clemens (4-2) 1479 |
66% (+7) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 11 | @Converse Wagner (1-4) 1053 |
92% (+24) | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com | ||||||||
Rank
#94
was #94
Record
3-3
2-1 district
Elo
1642
#94 of 249
OVR Grade
78.7
#94 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
81.3
#65 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
72.9
#145 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1663
#99 of 249 in 6A
Schedule & Results
District Standings Projection - District 27-6A
| 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 Pieper’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.
Best TNG Rated Seasons
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.