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

Vanessa Willick Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin 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
2018-19 Williamsville Federation USHS-W 23 9 12 21 0.913 0.2745 0.2745 — —
2019-20 Williamsville Federation USHS-W 22 14 18 32 1.454 0.4374 0.4374 — —
■ 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 Buffalo State D3 — — 24 10 9 19 0.792
2024-25 Buffalo State D3 — — 25 6 8 14 0.560
2023-24 Buffalo State D3 — — 22 7 4 11 0.500
2022-23 Buffalo State D3 — — 23 9 6 15 0.652
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.23
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.65
2022-23 · Buffalo State
+177.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

12%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
88%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#1459
Forward overall
#499
in USHS-W

D1 Comparables

Liz Schepers
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.84 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Average
NCAAe PPG
Paige Voight
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.76 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Amy Petersen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.92 PPG
→ Penn State (0.78 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mariah Gardner
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.74 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Emily Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.71 PPG
→ Lindenwood (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Liz Schepers
Ohio State ·
0.410 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Paige Voight
Merrimack ·
0.559 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Amy Petersen
Penn State ·
0.784 Strong
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.