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

Katarina Seper Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin 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
2011-12 Lakeville North High USHS-MN-W 13 0 1 1 0.077 0.0124 0.0124 — —
2012-13 Lakeville North High USHS-MN-W 25 0 4 4 0.160 0.0257 0.0257 — —
2013-14 Lakeville North High USHS-MN-W 24 1 6 7 0.292 0.0468 0.0468 — —
2014-15 Lakeville North High USHS-MN-W 24 8 8 16 0.667 0.1071 0.1071 — —
2015-16 Lakeville North High USHS-MN-W 25 9 10 19 0.760 0.1221 0.1221 — —
■ 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
2017-18 RPI D1 — — 18 0 0 0 0.000
2016-17 RPI D1 ECAC-W — 20 0 1 1 0.050
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.05
2016-17 · RPI
-54.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2821
Defenseman overall
#2229
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Taylor Flaherty
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.76 PPG
→ North Dakota
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG
Arianna Kosakowski
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Union
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ebba Strandberg
SDHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Maine (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Allison Roethke
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Quinnipiac
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
Emma Turbyville
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 0.39 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Taylor Flaherty
North Dakota ·
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Arianna Kosakowski
Union ·
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Ebba Strandberg
Maine ·
0.333 Average D
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.