← Back

CLASS 6A · District 10-6A

Tyler Legacy Red Raiders

Enrollment: 2,800 · Dist. Enr. Rk · 6

Rank

#143

was #142

Record

2-4

1-2 district

Elo

1413

#143 of 249

OVR Grade

75.3

#143 of 249 in 6A

OFF Grade

82.6

#57 of 249 in 6A

DEF Grade

59.5

#227 of 249 in 6A

Perf

1313

#157 of 249 in 6A

Schedule & Results

Wk	Opponent (Rec) Elo	Proj WP%	Result	Perf	AOS	ADS	WQ	LQ
1	@Texarkana Texas High	24% (-11)	L 26-35	1603	+4.6	+0.4	—	−0.60
2	@Tyler	73% (+10)	L 42-62	875	+11.5	+36.5	—	−0.94
3	Mesquite	58% (+3)	W 61-35	1746	+24.9	+15.1	+0.06	—
4	#44Rockwall-Heath (4-2) 1987	9% (-22)	L 35-63	1212	+6.5	+18.0	—	−0.43
5	@Mesquite Horn (0-6) 1116	59% (+3)	W 77-55	1475	+22.8	+23.8	+0.08	—
7	#37North Forney (1-4) 2041	8% (-24)	L 21-63	967	−5.7	+15.6	—	−0.32
8	@#38Rockwall (4-2) 2040	7% (-25)	—	—	—	—	—	—
9	#8Longview (5-1) 2462	< 2% (-42)	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	Forney (2-4) 1531	38% (-5)	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	@Royse City (1-5) 1569	34% (-6)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tradition Never Graduates 2026 | @TexasTNG | texastng.com

District Standings Projection - District 10-6A

Rk			Team (Enroll Rk)	OVR/Elo	Overall	District	PPG	PAPG	ProjRec	PO%	Bracket
1		8	Longview (8) Lobos	91.1 2462	5-1	3-0	48.2	21.0	6.8-0.2	> 98%	D2
2		38	Rockwall (3) Yellowjackets	84.8 2040	4-2	2-1	50.2	45.2	5.3-1.7	> 98%	D1
3		44	Rockwall-Heath (1) Hawks	84 1987	4-2	3-0	42.2	35.7	5-2	> 98%	D1
4		37	North Forney (5) Falcons	84.8 2041	1-4	1-2	38.0	40.6	4.3-2.7	91.3%	D2
5		115	Forney (2) Jackrabbits	77.1 1531	2-4	2-1	29.8	26.7	2.9-4.1	8.5%	—
6		104	Royse City (4) Bulldogs	77.6 1569	1-5	0-3	24.3	35.5	1.8-5.2	< 2%	—
7		143	Tyler Legacy (6) Red Raiders	75.3 1413	2-4	1-2	43.7	52.2	1.8-5.2	< 2%	—
8		189	Mesquite Horn (7) Jaguars	70.8 1116	0-6	0-3	30.7	62.0	0.2-6.8	< 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 Tyler Legacy’s season stacked up against the state’s best year over year.

Best TNG Rated Seasons

#1 · 2004

12-3

Rating 735 (96th)

#2 · 2009

5-6

Rating 681 (92nd)

#3 · 2006

9-3

Rating 658 (89th)

#4 · 2008

7-5

Rating 654 (88th)

#5 · 2010

2-9

Rating 611 (80th)

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	1323	27.4	46.5	−19.1	1816	+3.8	+8.1	−4.4	1391	−3.18	+0.38	−3.56	502(45th)
2024	3-7	1346	24.3	40.1	−15.8	1762	−1.1	+4.8	−5.8	1354	−3.51	+0.65	−4.15	494(42nd)
2023	3-8	1372	15.6	29.0	−13.4	1694	−8.9	−4.3	−4.5	1387	−4.12	+0.64	−4.75	501(44th)
2022	2-8	1341	16.9	36.7	−19.8	1696	−7.4	+3.8	−11.2	1220	−4.12	+0.21	−4.33	468(33rd)
2021	6-6	1749	32.5	34.1	−1.6	1834	+9.6	−1.6	+11.2	1780	+0.06	+1.40	−1.34	598(77th)
2020	6-6	1854	32.9	31.0	+1.9	1791	+11.7	−5.2	+17.0	1924	−0.52	+1.73	−2.25	607(79th)
2019	6-5	1739	26.0	25.1	+0.9	1755	+1.5	−9.6	+11.1	1777	−0.42	+1.36	−1.79	579(71st)
2018	2-8	1357	26.5	47.2	−20.7	1768	+3.2	+13.0	−9.9	1253	−4.29	+0.29	−4.58	477(35th)
2017	6-4	1748	34.1	31.5	+2.6	1682	+7.9	−2.2	+10.1	1753	−0.55	+1.33	−1.87	574(70th)
2016	2-8	1438	34.2	41.5	−7.3	1723	+6.0	+4.1	+1.9	1547	−3.83	+0.29	−4.12	519(52nd)
2015	5-5	1663	44.8	49.1	−4.3	1586	+15.9	+15.8	+0.1	1503	−1.52	+1.04	−2.56	533(56th)
2014	5-6	1642	44.3	41.8	+2.5	1613	+15.3	+7.7	+7.6	1691	−1.44	+1.40	−2.84	556(64th)
2013	3-6	1607	27.6	39.3	−11.8	1827	+4.2	+2.4	+1.8	1546	−0.82	+1.78	−2.60	546(61st)
2012	0-9	1190	12.7	38.9	−26.2	1854	−9.5	+2.7	−12.2	1194	−4.75	0.00	−4.75	465(32nd)
2011	1-9	1433	16.5	39.0	−22.5	2052	+0.5	+0.7	−0.1	1497	−2.46	+0.65	−3.12	538(58th)
2010	2-9	1775	18.1	28.4	−10.3	2074	−0.3	−12.6	+12.4	1809	−1.92	+0.53	−2.45	611(80th)
2009	5-6	2122	23.7	22.5	+1.2	2028	+7.0	−16.5	+23.6	2089	+1.03	+2.70	−1.68	681(92nd)
2008	7-5	1942	25.4	14.3	+11.1	1777	+4.5	−18.0	+22.5	2064	+0.60	+2.39	−1.79	654(88th)
2007	5-6	1695	16.6	20.5	−3.9	1804	−2.6	−10.8	+8.2	1705	−1.15	+0.96	−2.11	578(71st)
2006	9-3	2023	21.6	14.0	+7.6	1777	+1.7	−16.9	+18.5	1963	+2.38	+2.89	−0.50	658(89th)
2005	4-6	1737	19.4	28.6	−9.2	1705	+0.8	−2.3	+3.2	1579	−2.35	+0.94	−3.28	557(64th)
2004	12-3	2390	36.1	16.7	+19.4	1830	+17.9	−13.9	+31.8	2296	+4.15	+5.42	−1.27	735(96th)
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.