← New Search ↗ Social Card

Madison Woo Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-09-24 Country: USA
Signed Professionally
KRS Shenzhen · CWHL

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
2010-11 Maple Grove High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 11 14 25 1.000 0.1606 0.1587
2011-12 Maple Grove High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 9 21 30 1.200 0.1927 0.1821
2012-13 Maple Grove High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 19 15 34 1.360 0.2184 0.1983
2018-19 KRS Shenzhen CWHL 28 3 3 6 0.214
2019-20 KRS Shenzhen CWHL 28 3 3 6 0.214
2020-21 KRS Shenzhen CWHL 28 3 3 6 0.214
2021-22 KRS Shenzhen CWHL 28 3 3 6 0.214
2022-23 KRS Shenzhen CWHL 28 3 3 6 0.214
2023-24 KRS Shenzhen CWHL 28 3 3 6 0.214
2025-26 KRS Shenzhen CWHL 28 3 3 6 0.214
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
2016-17 Brown D1 ECAC-W 5 1 3 4 0.800
2015-16 Brown D1 ECAC-W 29 6 9 15 0.517
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.52
2015-16 · Brown
+215.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3999
Forward overall
#114
Forward born in 1994

D1 Comparables

USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ UConn (1.00 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Elite
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.32 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.60 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Strong
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.12 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac
0.18 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.36 PPG
→ Brown (0.63 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

UConn ·
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.600 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ohio State ·
0.410 Average
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.