← Back

CLASS 6A · District 14-6A

Spring Lions

Enrollment: 2,369 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 6

Rank

#200

was #204

Record

2-4

1-2 district

Elo

1061

#200 of 249

OVR Grade

70

#200 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

69.9

#176 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

67.4

#191 of 249 in 6A

Perf

1095

#188 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
1	@Channelview (0-7) 780	39% (-4)	W 40-27	861	−12.6	+12.9	+0.04	—
2	@#50Waller (5-1) 1950	2% (-35)	L 0-40	1057	−22.2	−4.5	—	−0.39
3	Cy Lakes (4-2) 1523	21% (-13)	L 24-44	1005	−3.6	+16.2	—	−0.87
5	@Spring Dekaney (3-3) 1327	13% (-19)	L 28-31	1302	+4.4	+12.3	—	−0.82
6	#49Spring Westfield (4-2) 1956	2% (-36)	L 6-42	1143	−1.1	+13.1	—	−0.43
7	@Aldine Eisenhower (3-3) 1292	21% (-13)	W 21-20	1202	−8.1	+3.8	+0.10	—
8	@Aldine MacArthur (4-2) 943	62% (+5)	—	—	—	—	—	—
9	Aldine Nimitz (3-3) 1518	13% (-18)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	@Aldine Davis (5-1) 1655	8% (-24)	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	Aldine (0-6) 143	98% (+37)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 14-6A

Rk			Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1		49	Spring Westfield (8) Mustangs	83.5 1956	4-2	3-0	24.8	6.2	6.7-0.3	> 98%	D2
2		92	Aldine Davis (2) Falcons	78.9 1655	5-1	3-0	34.7	19.5	5.6-1.4	> 98%	D1
3		119	Aldine Nimitz (3) Cougars	76.9 1518	3-3	2-1	23.8	27.0	4.9-2.1	96.9%	D1
4		159	Spring Dekaney (7) Wildcats	74 1327	3-3	1-2	18.5	20.3	3.4-3.6	62.9%	D2
5		164	Aldine Eisenhower (5) Eagles	73.5 1292	3-3	1-2	17.5	25.2	2.9-4.1	28.1%	—
6		200	Spring (6) Lions	70 1061	2-4	1-2	19.8	34.0	2.8-4.2	10%	—
7		210	Aldine MacArthur (1) Generals	68.2 943	4-2	1-2	30.5	25.8	1.6-5.3	2.6%	—
8		249	Aldine (4) Mustangs	56.1 143	0-6	0-3	1.2	47.3	0-7	< 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 Spring’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2021

11-2

Rating 704 (94th)

#2 · 2014

10-4

Rating 701 (94th)

#3 · 2015

11-2

Rating 682 (92nd)

#4 · 2020

9-1

Rating 676 (91st)

#5 · 2017

8-2

Rating 638 (86th)

Team Performance History

Year	Record	Final Elo	PPG	PAPG	Margin	Elo SOS	AOS	ADS	DOM	Perf	RQ	WQ	LQ	All-Time Rating (%ile)
2025	2-8	1014	9.0	32.2	−23.2	1432	−18.8	+8.0	−26.9	829	−5.47	+0.01	−5.48	390(13th)
2024	5-6	1536	22.6	28.6	−6.0	1472	−3.3	+1.1	−4.4	1391	−2.58	+0.63	−3.21	512(49th)
2023	5-6	1358	30.8	28.2	+2.6	1490	+2.5	+1.1	+1.4	1535	−2.56	+0.22	−2.78	519(52nd)
2022	4-6	1408	27.0	25.4	+1.6	1483	−3.0	−2.0	−1.0	1475	−3.34	+0.34	−3.69	508(47th)
2021	11-2	2289	46.5	17.3	+29.2	1569	+18.7	−13.7	+32.4	2311	+3.30	+3.40	−0.10	704(94th)
2020	9-1	2123	39.3	15.1	+24.2	1589	+14.9	−12.5	+27.4	2185	+3.10	+3.21	−0.10	676(91st)
2019	8-3	1671	34.9	21.0	+13.9	1437	+6.3	−4.4	+10.7	1768	−0.26	+0.85	−1.11	569(68th)
2018	5-6	1555	35.1	27.9	+7.2	1416	+4.1	+1.4	+2.7	1566	−3.62	+0.46	−4.08	532(56th)
2017	8-2	1932	29.0	9.3	+19.7	1404	+2.9	−14.7	+17.6	1940	+0.34	+1.08	−0.73	638(86th)
2016	9-3	1942	31.3	17.6	+13.8	1523	+4.8	−8.7	+13.6	1839	+0.79	+1.59	−0.79	615(81st)
2015	11-2	2247	31.7	15.4	+16.3	1716	+10.0	−15.5	+25.5	2137	+3.40	+3.65	−0.26	682(92nd)
2014	10-4	2217	32.4	20.1	+12.2	1830	+12.8	−14.3	+27.2	2179	+3.33	+4.31	−0.98	701(94th)
2013	2-8	1404	21.3	33.6	−12.3	1851	+0.2	−0.7	+0.9	1523	−3.29	+0.99	−4.28	526(54th)
2012	3-7	1644	39.7	41.0	−1.3	1807	+14.7	+3.8	+10.9	1773	−2.87	+0.95	−3.82	578(71st)
2011	4-5	1630	26.4	33.4	−7.0	1784	+4.3	−0.4	+4.7	1617	−1.29	+1.27	−2.56	555(64th)
2010	2-8	1200	25.7	37.4	−11.7	1637	+1.9	+8.0	−6.1	1346	−4.26	+0.24	−4.50	475(35th)
2009	2-8	1299	28.3	37.6	−9.3	1694	+5.7	+7.2	−1.4	1464	−5.29	+0.38	−5.66	499(44th)
2008	4-5	1574	21.1	20.1	+1.0	1620	−1.6	−6.6	+4.9	1623	−1.76	+1.55	−3.31	546(61st)
2007	5-5	1602	21.8	23.6	−1.8	1761	+3.2	−4.9	+8.2	1704	−0.31	+1.31	−1.62	565(67th)
2006	3-7	1437	20.9	30.3	−9.4	1755	+0.6	+1.4	−0.8	1479	−3.23	+0.46	−3.69	519(52nd)
2005	4-4	1585	31.0	26.6	+4.4	1437	+5.8	+4.3	+1.5	1537	−2.42	+0.46	−2.88	539(58th)
2004	8-3	1634	32.0	21.0	+11.0	1575	+9.1	−5.9	+14.9	1873	+0.33	+2.01	−1.69	589(75th)
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.