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

Sean Farley Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1986-12-28 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
2005-06 Northern Michigan Black Bears NOJHL 48 13 24 37 0.771 0.1313 0.1328 0.3267 0.3304
2006-07 Soo Indians NOJHL 45 31 27 58 1.289 0.2195 0.2116 0.5462 0.5267
■ 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
2009-10 Lake Forest D3 NCHA JR 22 11 6 17 0.773
2008-09 Lake Forest D3 NCHA SO 5 1 2 3 0.600
2007-08 Utica D3 UCHC FR 21 5 7 12 0.571
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.57
2007-08 · Utica
+270.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#20754
Forward overall
#691
Forward born in 1986
#123
in NOJHL

D1 Comparables

Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Siiro
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jim Pearson
Concordia · 2015-16
0.708 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Mike Glaesmer
Saint Mary's (MN) · 2005-06
1.040 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Franco Loparco
Concordia · 2011-12
0.500 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.