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

Courtney Johnston 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
2014-15 Rogers High USHS-MN-W 25 8 1 9 0.360 0.0544 0.0544 — —
2015-16 Rogers High USHS-MN-W 21 7 6 13 0.619 0.0935 0.0935 — —
2016-17 Rogers High USHS-MN-W 25 4 13 17 0.680 0.1027 0.1027 — —
2017-18 Rogers High USHS-MN-W 25 4 11 15 0.600 0.0906 0.0906 — —
■ 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
2019-20 Bethel D3 MIAC — 25 4 2 6 0.240
2018-19 Bethel D3 MIAC — 25 7 6 13 0.520
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.09
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.52
2018-19 · Bethel
+477.1% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

15%
NCAA D1
2%
NCAA D2/D3
82%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2797
Defenseman overall
#2201
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Amanda Kimmerle
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.60 PPG
→ RPI (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Megan Hinze
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.60 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Andrea Olson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.58 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Mckenzie Revering
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.56 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
McKenna Wesloh
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.56 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Amanda Kimmerle
RPI ·
0.059 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
Megan Hinze
Minnesota State ·
0.182 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrea Olson
Merrimack ·
0.056 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.