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

Sophie Berghammer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense 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
2021-22 Culver Military Academy USHS-W 49 5 12 17 0.347 0.1043 0.1043 — —
■ 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 Hamilton D3 — — 25 2 5 7 0.280
2024-25 Hamilton D3 — — 26 1 3 4 0.154
2023-24 Hamilton D3 — — 29 1 5 6 0.207
2022-23 Hamilton D3 — — 30 1 3 4 0.133
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.13
2022-23 · Hamilton
+35.0% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

10%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
90%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2809
Defenseman overall
#2715
in USHS-W

D1 Comparables

Briana Jorde
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.68 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Cheyenne Harris
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Union (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Turnquist
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Flaherty
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.76 PPG
→ North Dakota
0.11 No data
NCAAe PPG
Emma Turbyville
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 0.39 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Briana Jorde
Bemidji State ·
0.077 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
Cheyenne Harris
Union ·
0.324 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Taylor Turnquist
Clarkson ·
0.171 Developing D
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.