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

Taylor Brueske Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2006-02-17 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
2020-21 Moorhead High (W) USHS-MN-W 18 6 4 10 0.556 0.0892 0.0892 — —
2021-22 Moorhead High (W) USHS-MN-W 28 9 12 21 0.750 0.1205 0.1205 — —
2022-23 Moorhead High (W) USHS-MN-W 31 16 18 34 1.097 0.1761 0.1761 — —
2023-24 Moorhead High (W) USHS-MN-W 28 13 21 34 1.214 0.1950 0.1779 — —
■ 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 — 41 10 5 15 0.366
2024-25 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC-W — 29 1 3 4 0.138
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.14
2024-25 · Quinnipiac
-9.1% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

15%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
85%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#4739
Forward overall
#198
Forward born in 2006
#881
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Danielle Marmer
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac
0.18 No data
NCAAe PPG
Liz Schepers
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.12 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG
Grace Zumwinkle
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.08 PPG
→ Minnesota (1.00 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Chancellor
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.08 PPG
→ Yale (0.52 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
Natalie Snodgrass
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ UConn (1.00 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Elite
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Danielle Marmer
Quinnipiac ·
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Liz Schepers
Ohio State ·
0.410 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Grace Zumwinkle
Minnesota ·
1.000 Elite
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.