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

Allison Roethke Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense 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
2011-12 Buffalo High USHS-MN-W 25 7 6 13 0.520 0.0835 0.0835 — —
2012-13 Buffalo High USHS-MN-W 25 5 15 20 0.800 0.1285 0.1285 — —
2013-14 Buffalo High USHS-MN-W 25 6 10 16 0.640 0.1028 0.1028 — —
2014-15 Buffalo High USHS-MN-W 24 8 21 29 1.208 0.1941 0.1941 — —
2015-16 Buffalo High USHS-MN-W 25 4 10 14 0.560 0.0899 0.0899 — —
■ 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
2019-20 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC-W SR 27 1 1 2 0.074
2018-19 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC-W JR 35 0 0 0 0.000
2017-18 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC-W SO 35 0 0 0 0.000
2016-17 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC-W FR 26 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#2080
Defenseman overall
#1580
in USHS-MN-W

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.