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

Madison Vaughn 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
2017-18 Steel City Selects 16U AA 2 16U-AAA-W 39 2 4 6 0.154 0.0690 0.0690 — —
■ 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
2024-25 King's D3 UCHC — 24 8 0 8 0.333
2023-24 King's D3 UCHC — 26 5 4 9 0.346
2022-23 King's D3 UCHC — 25 2 4 6 0.240
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.24
2022-23 · King's
+306.1% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 1 comparables)

0%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
100%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#10924
Forward overall
#362
in 16U-AAA-W

D1 Comparables

Mallorie Iozzo
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sierra Smith
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.40 PPG
→ Minnesota
0.06 No data
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Heise
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.90 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Laura Anderson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Yale (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Presley Norby
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mallorie Iozzo
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.069 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Sierra Smith
Minnesota ·
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Taylor Heise
Minnesota ·
0.897 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.