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

Avery Hovland 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
2023-24 NAHA Red 16U 16U-AAA-W 64 38 20 58 0.906 0.3651 0.3651 — —
2024-25 NAHA White 19U AAA JWHL-U19 24 7 12 19 0.792 0.2633 0.2633 — —
■ 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 Minnesota D1 WCHA-W FR 34 3 1 4 0.118
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.26
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.12
2025-26 · Minnesota
-54.7% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

15%
NCAA D1
10%
NCAA D2/D3
75%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2006
Forward overall

D1 Comparables

Taylor Williamson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.64 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.40 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Average
NCAAe PPG
Emily Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.64 PPG
→ Lindenwood (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Melissa Haganey
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Carly Radovich
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Sacred Heart (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Christi Vetter
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.67 PPG
→ Penn State
0.27 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Taylor Williamson
Minnesota ·
0.395 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Emily Gunderson
Lindenwood ·
0.171 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Melissa Haganey
Northeastern ·
0.143 Developing
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.