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

Sara Swiderski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2004-11-11 Country: Canada
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
2020-21 RINK HA Kelowna U18 Prep CSSHL-U18W 7 0 3 3 0.429 0.0982 0.0982 — —
2021-22 RINK HA Kelowna U18 Prep CSSHL-U18W 26 12 22 34 1.308 0.2996 0.2996 — —
■ 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 Ohio State D1 WCHA-W — 33 8 19 27 0.818
2024-25 Ohio State D1 WCHA-W — 37 1 11 12 0.324
2023-24 Clarkson D1 ECAC-W — 38 2 8 10 0.263
2022-23 Clarkson D1 ECAC-W — 40 2 7 9 0.225
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.28
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.23
2022-23 · Clarkson
-20.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 24 comparables)

8%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
92%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#342
Defenseman overall
#80
Defenseman born in 2004
#29
in CSSHL-U18W

D1 Comparables

Anna Kilponen
SMLIIGA-W · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Lauren Kelly
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Dartmouth (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Marchin
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.77 PPG
→ Yale (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dani Sadek
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.46 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Christa Vuglar
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.00 PPG
→ RIT (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Anna Kilponen
North Dakota ·
0.257 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Lauren Kelly
Dartmouth ·
0.208 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Taylor Marchin
Yale ·
0.207 Average 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.