← New Search ↗ Social Card

Emma MacIntyre Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2007-07-26 Country: Canada
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
2022-23 Stanstead College Varsity (W) CAHS-W 42 3 8 11 0.262 0.0940 0.1003
2023-24 Stanstead College Varsity (W) CAHS-W 63 4 22 26 0.413 0.1481 0.1500
2024-25 Stanstead College Varsity (W) CAHS-W 63 4 24 28 0.444 0.1595 0.1563
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 Delaware D1 NEWHA FR 26 0 6 6 0.231
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.23
2025-26 · Delaware
+59.0% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

12%
NCAA D1
5%
NCAA D2/D3
82%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2769
Defenseman overall
#368
Defenseman born in 2007

D1 Comparables

USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.04 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.08 PPG
→ Harvard (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.08 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.13 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Union
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.16 PPG
→ Boston College (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Wisconsin ·
0.350 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Harvard ·
0.100 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
Minnesota ·
0.129 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.