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

Sophie Rousseau Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2006-08-13 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
2024-25 Philadelphia Jr Flyers 19U JWHL-U19 21 2 4 6 0.286 0.0950 0.0892 — —
■ 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 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC-W — 26 0 1 1 0.038
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.04
2025-26 · Quinnipiac
-54.3% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

5%
NCAA D1
2%
NCAA D2/D3
92%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2997
Defenseman overall
#378
Defenseman born in 2006
#289
in JWHL-U19

D1 Comparables

Mckenzie Revering
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.56 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
McKenna Wesloh
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.56 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Kate Rydland
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.54 PPG
→ Penn State (0.16 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
Lauren Boyle
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.49 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mckenzie Revering
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.059 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
McKenna Wesloh
Ohio State ·
0.273 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Kate Rydland
Penn State ·
0.161 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.