IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

Nina Hudakova Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2004-04-08 Country: Slovakia
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
2022-23 Hoosac School USHS-W 18 12 11 23 1.278 0.3842 0.3376 — —
2023-24 Hoosac School USHS-W 14 10 1 11 0.786 0.2363 0.1934 — —
■ 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
2025-26 Wilkes D3 — SO 28 22 25 47 1.679
2024-25 Wilkes D3 UCHC — 26 14 11 25 0.962
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.21
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.96
2024-25 · Wilkes
+347.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

5%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
95%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2250
Forward overall
#91
Forward born in 2004
#811
in USHS-W

D1 Comparables

Sydney Brodt
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.32 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.60 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Jackie Pieper
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.32 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sena Hanson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.36 PPG
→ Brown (0.63 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Savannah Quandt
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.36 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Natalie Snodgrass
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ UConn (1.00 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Elite
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Sydney Brodt
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.600 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jackie Pieper
Merrimack ·
0.324 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Sena Hanson
Brown ·
0.630 Average
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.