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

Meera Smith Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2006-05-05 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
2023-24 Shawnigan Lake School CSSHL-U18W 30 7 18 25 0.833 0.1909 0.1909 — —
2024-25 Shawnigan Lake School CSSHL-U18W 30 12 23 35 1.167 0.2673 0.2673 — —
■ 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 Delaware D1 NEWHA FR 33 4 3 7 0.212
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2025-26 · Delaware
+4.7% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

0%
NCAA D1
2%
NCAA D2/D3
98%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#3128
Forward overall
#121
Forward born in 2006
#54
in CSSHL-U18W

D1 Comparables

Paige Voight
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.76 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Amy Petersen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.92 PPG
→ Penn State (0.78 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mariah Gardner
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.74 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Emily Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.71 PPG
→ Lindenwood (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Liz Schepers
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.84 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Paige Voight
Merrimack ·
0.559 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Amy Petersen
Penn State ·
0.784 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Mariah Gardner
Minnesota State ·
0.071 Developing
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.