← Back
CLASS 6A · District 27-6A

Schertz Clemens Buffaloes

Enrollment: 2,651 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 3
Rank
#125
was #146
Record
4-2
1-2 district
Elo
1479
#125 of 249
OVR Grade
76.3
#125 of 249 in 6A
OFF Grade
74.6
#129 of 249 in 6A
DEF Grade
73.4
#138 of 249 in 6A
Perf
1440
#134 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk Opponent (Rec) Elo Proj WP% Result Perf AOS ADS WQ LQ
1
San Antonio Roosevelt (3-3) 1374
 43% (-3) W 50-22 2047 +12.9 −9.0 +0.15 —
2
San Antonio Churchill (1-5) 1096
 84% (+16) W 28-27 1068 −15.3 +2.0 +0.04 —
3
@New Braunfels
 51% (+0) W 25-14 1685 −4.8 −12.2 +0.20 —
4
@Converse Judson (2-3) 1513
 73% (+10) L 41-51 1238 −1.1 +9.4 — −0.88
5
San Antonio East Central (5-1) 1731
 31% (-8) L 20-47 1116 +0.5 +15.8 — −0.69
7
@New Braunfels Canyon (3-3) 1358
 46% (-2) W 28-21 1488 +4.7 +5.1 +0.15 —
8
@San Marcos (0-6) 1254
 72% (+9) — — — — — —
9
Converse Wagner (1-4) 1053
 86% (+17) — — — — — —
10
@San Antonio Pieper (3-3) 1642
 34% (-7) — — — — — —
11
#20Cibolo Steele (4-1-1) 2221
 4% (-30) — — — — — —
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 27-6A

Rk Team (Enroll Rk) OVR/Elo Overall District PPG PAPG ProjRec PO% Bracket
1 20
Knights
87.5
2221
 4-1 3-0 46.5 23.5 6.8-0.2 > 98% D1
2 76
Hornets
80.1
1731
 5-1 3-0 32.8 16.5 5.3-1.7 > 98% D1
3 94
Warriors
78.7
1642
 3-3 2-1 40.3 36.2 4.8-2.2 92.5% D2
4 120
Rockets
76.8
1513
 2-3 2-1 43.4 47.2 3.8-3.2 77.8% D2
5 125
Buffaloes
76.3
1479
 4-2 1-2 32.0 30.3 3-4 17.3% —
6 152
Cougars
74.5
1358
 3-3 1-2 14.3 20.7 2.4-4.6 10.2% —
7 169
Rattlers
72.9
1254
 0-6 0-3 15.5 40.0 1.4-5.7 2.6% —
8 202
Thunderbirds
69.9
1053
 1-4 0-3 21.6 34.8 0.7-6.3 < 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 Schertz Clemens’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2017
8-3
Rating 673 (91st)
#2 · 2019
10-2
Rating 663 (90th)
#3 · 2015
11-3
Rating 661 (89th)
#4 · 2005
10-1
Rating 631 (85th)
#5 · 2020
4-5
Rating 624 (83rd)

Team Performance History

Year Record Final
Elo		 PPG PAPG Margin Elo
SOS		 AOS ADS DOM Perf RQ WQ LQ All-Time
Rating (%ile)
2025 4-6 1369 25.5 24.7 +0.8 1398 −2.9 −0.7 −2.2 1445 −3.69 +0.26 −3.96 504(46th)
2024 2-8 1133 19.0 33.0 −14.0 1491 −11.2 +4.0 −15.2 1121 −5.60 +0.06 −5.66 440(24th)
2023 4-6 1266 25.8 25.5 +0.3 1418 −5.4 −1.6 −3.7 1406 −3.85 +0.43 −4.28 493(42nd)
2022 4-6 1297 24.5 25.7 −1.2 1488 −5.2 −2.7 −2.5 1438 −3.71 +0.41 −4.11 493(42nd)
2021 2-8 1415 10.1 25.2 −15.1 1825 −9.2 −7.6 −1.6 1460 −3.24 +0.58 −3.82 513(49th)
2020 4-5 1897 30.7 27.8 +2.9 1880 +9.9 −8.5 +18.4 1960 −0.91 +0.77 −1.68 624(83rd)
2019 10-2 2229 33.5 18.8 +14.8 1725 +9.8 −14.0 +23.8 2095 +3.73 +4.26 −0.53 663(90th)
2018 6-5 1918 24.1 23.1 +1.0 1849 +2.7 −10.9 +13.6 1840 +0.16 +1.54 −1.37 613(81st)
2017 8-3 2085 25.9 12.8 +13.1 1776 +2.2 −22.1 +24.4 2109 +2.26 +2.55 −0.29 673(91st)
2016 5-5 1782 36.3 23.3 +13.0 1724 +12.9 −10.1 +22.9 2073 −0.96 +0.54 −1.50 620(82nd)
2015 11-3 2075 41.6 37.3 +4.3 1860 +19.0 −0.2 +19.2 1980 +3.91 +4.11 −0.19 661(89th)
2014 5-6 1615 22.5 25.4 −2.8 1765 +0.8 −6.0 +6.9 1671 −1.94 +0.57 −2.51 556(64th)
2013 2-0 1618 42.0 3.5 +38.5 1023 +9.0 −9.2 +18.2 1955 +0.34 +0.34 0.00 —
2012 0-3 1323 13.0 31.7 −18.7 1583 −13.6 +4.5 −18.1 1048 −2.33 0.00 −2.33 —
2011 1-1 1699 8.5 15.0 −6.5 1298 −15.9 −4.7 −11.2 1221 −0.50 +0.02 −0.52 —
2010 1-1 1802 10.5 24.0 −13.5 1411 −12.2 +1.4 −13.6 1159 −0.18 +0.12 −0.30 —
2009 1-0 1882 27.0 17.0 +10.0 1302 −3.1 −7.4 +4.3 1609 +0.04 +0.04 0.00 —
2008 2-0 1898 26.5 6.0 +20.5 1405 −1.8 −15.8 +14.1 1851 +0.38 +0.38 0.00 —
2007 2-0 1847 20.5 6.5 +14.0 1637 −5.0 −22.6 +17.6 1941 +0.30 +0.30 0.00 —
2006 1-1 1800 22.5 10.0 +12.5 1367 −2.4 −10.2 +7.8 1695 −0.66 +0.20 −0.86 —
2005 10-1 1860 35.7 10.7 +25.0 1281 +6.5 −9.4 +15.9 1899 +1.01 +1.47 −0.45 631(85th)
2004 8-3 1772 30.9 12.5 +18.4 1343 +2.8 −8.9 +11.7 1792 −0.64 +0.77 −1.41 607(79th)
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.