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

Megan Wolfe Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-06-08 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
2010-11 Eagan High USHS-MN-W 25 26 33 59 2.360 0.3790 0.3879 — —
2011-12 Eagan High USHS-MN-W 25 41 18 59 2.360 0.3790 0.3714 — —
2012-13 Eagan High USHS-MN-W 20 26 22 48 2.400 0.3854 0.3636 — —
■ 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
2016-17 Minnesota D1 WCHA-W — 37 6 17 23 0.622
2015-16 Minnesota D1 WCHA-W — 40 5 24 29 0.725
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.35
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.72
2015-16 · Minnesota
+109.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#178
Defenseman overall
#48
Defenseman born in 1995
#55
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Taylor Marchin
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.77 PPG
→ Yale (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 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
Anna Wright
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.86 PPG
→ Maine
0.40 No data
NCAAe PPG
Anna Kilponen
SMLIIGA-W · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Paige Haley
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.40 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Taylor Marchin
Yale ·
0.207 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Lauren Kelly
Dartmouth ·
0.208 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Anna Wright
Maine ·
0.000 No data
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.