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

Serena Seiple Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2003-08-20 Country: Latvia
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 New Trier High USHS-W 7 4 2 6 0.857 0.2577 0.2577 — —
■ 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 Connecticut College D3 — — 24 5 7 12 0.500
2024-25 Connecticut College D3 — — 24 7 5 12 0.500
2024-25 UConn D1 HEA-W — 23 7 4 11 0.478
2023-24 Connecticut College D3 — — 24 5 5 10 0.417
2022-23 Connecticut College D3 — — 24 5 6 11 0.458
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.46
2022-23 · Connecticut College
+107.6% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

8%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
92%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Emily Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.71 PPG
→ Lindenwood (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Charly Dalhquist
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.68 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jordan McLaughlin
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.68 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Mariah Gardner
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.74 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Amy Petersen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.92 PPG
→ Penn State (0.78 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Emily Gunderson
Lindenwood ·
0.171 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Charly Dalhquist
North Dakota ·
0.241 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jordan McLaughlin
Minnesota State ·
0.294 Developing
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.