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

Tianna Gunderson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-08-27 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
2011-12 Roseau High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 11 7 18 0.720 0.1156 0.1156 — —
2012-13 Roseau High (W) USHS-MN-W 24 7 12 19 0.792 0.1271 0.1271 — —
2013-14 Roseau High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 19 11 30 1.200 0.1927 0.1927 — —
2014-15 Roseau High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 28 18 46 1.840 0.2955 0.2955 — —
■ 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
2018-19 Minnesota D1 WCHA-W — 17 0 1 1 0.059
2017-18 Minnesota D1 WCHA-W JR 38 0 2 2 0.053
2016-17 Minnesota D1 WCHA-W SO 22 1 0 1 0.045
2015-16 Minnesota D1 WCHA-W FR 29 0 2 2 0.069
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.07
2015-16 · Minnesota
-68.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3344
Forward overall
#123
Forward born in 1996
#457
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Liz Schepers
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.84 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average
NCAAe PPG
Casey Leveillee
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.63 PPG
→ Vermont (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Paige Voight
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.76 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Amy Petersen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.92 PPG
→ Penn State (0.78 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mariah Gardner
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.74 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Liz Schepers
Ohio State ·
0.410 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Casey Leveillee
Vermont ·
0.265 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Paige Voight
Merrimack ·
0.559 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.