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

Emma Peterson 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
2013-14 Superior High USHS-W 23 40 18 58 2.522 0.7583 0.7583 — —
2014-15 Superior High USHS-W 23 41 24 65 2.826 0.8498 0.8498 — —
2015-16 Superior High USHS-W 23 26 29 55 2.391 0.7191 0.7191 — —
2016-17 Superior High USHS-W 23 27 13 40 1.739 0.5229 0.5229 — —
■ 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
2021-22 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — — 29 13 11 24 0.828
2020-21 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — — 13 7 4 11 0.846
2019-20 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — — 28 10 10 20 0.714
2018-19 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — — 29 5 11 16 0.552
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.56
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.55
2018-19 · Wisconsin-Eau Claire
-1.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#305
Forward overall
#77
in USHS-W

D1 Comparables

Kelly Pannek
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 3.45 PPG
→ Minnesota (1.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.52 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Nicole Schammel
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 3.44 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.52 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Ivy Dynek
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.78 PPG
→ St. Cloud State
0.53 No data
NCAAe PPG
Katie Detert
USHS-W · 2012-13 · 1.80 PPG
→ St. Cloud State
0.54 No data
NCAAe PPG
Natasia Burzynski
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Providence (0.03 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kelly Pannek
Minnesota ·
1.073 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Nicole Schammel
Minnesota State ·
0.611 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ivy Dynek
St. Cloud State ·
0.000 No data
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.