← New Search ↗ Social Card

Brandon Bukowski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1987-09-21 Country: USA
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  ■ Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2005-06 Tri-City Storm USHL 9 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2006-07 Fargo-Moorhead Jets NAHL 59 1 4 5 0.085 0.0311 0.0309 0.0895 0.0890
2007-08 Fargo-Moorhead Jets NAHL 55 5 12 17 0.309 0.1136 0.1074 0.3267 0.3090
■ Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   ■ Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2011-12 Augsburg D3 MIAC SR 17 0 4 4 0.235
2010-11 Augsburg D3 MIAC JR 22 1 4 5 0.227
2009-10 Augsburg D3 MIAC SO 24 0 0 0 0.000
2008-09 Augsburg D3 MIAC FR 22 0 6 6 0.273
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.27
2008-09 · Augsburg
+260.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#18736
Defenseman overall
#1612
Defenseman born in 1987

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Utica · 2015-16
0.222 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Saint John's · 2021-22
0.640 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Wisconsin-Superior · 2011-12
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.