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

Laura Bowman Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-11-08 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 Minnetonka High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 20 22 42 1.680 0.2698 0.2683 — —
2011-12 Minnetonka High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 27 16 43 1.720 0.2762 0.2627 — —
2012-13 Minnetonka High (W) USHS-MN-W 25 26 20 46 1.840 0.2955 0.2702 — —
■ 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 Penn State D1 WCHA-W — 33 18 14 32 0.970
2015-16 Penn State D1 WCHA-W — 37 17 8 25 0.676
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.23
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.68
2015-16 · Penn State
+195.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2286
Forward overall
#80
Forward born in 1994
#214
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Charly Dalhquist
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.68 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jordan McLaughlin
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.68 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Christi Vetter
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.67 PPG
→ Penn State
0.27 No data
NCAAe PPG
Emily Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.71 PPG
→ Lindenwood (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Williamson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.64 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.40 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Charly Dalhquist
North Dakota ·
0.241 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jordan McLaughlin
Minnesota ·
0.294 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Christi Vetter
Penn State ·
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.