← New Search ↗ Social Card

Conor Sullivan Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Goalie DOB: 2003-10-03 Country: USA
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

Save % Equivalency
Goals Against Average
Base SV%
Year Adj
Source
Confidence

NCAA D3 / D2

Save % Equivalency
Goals Against Average
Base SV%
Year Adj
Source
Confidence
Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw SV%  ·  Solid blue = age-adj SVe%  ·  Green = actual college SV%
Goalie Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP W L SV% GAA SO SVe Factor Age-Adj SV%
2023-24 NAHL 30 8 16 88.2% 4.17 0 0.9843 82.8%
2022-23 BCHL 24 3 20 85.8% 6.70 1 0.9990 84.9%
SVe Factor = save% equivalency relative to NCAA D1 average  ·  COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div GP W L SV% GAA SO
2025-26 Middlebury D3 5 94.2% 1.73 0
2024-25 Middlebury D3 5 1 2 92.1% 2.46 1
Goalie Comparables (D1)

Historical goalies with similar age-adjusted SVe profiles who went on to play NCAA D1.

Name Junior League Junior SV% Adj SVe College NCAA SV% NCAA GAA
Ben Charette AJHL 92.5% 82.7% Harvard 90.9% 2.77
Rorke Applebee BCHL 90.2% 83.3% Lake Superior State 90.7% 3.00
Malachi Klassen MJHL 91.7% 82.2% Holy Cross 3.04
Carson Dorfman NAHL 90.1% 84.7% RPI 100.0%
Liam Beerman USHL 91.2% 80.8% Lindenwood 90.3% 3.24
Goalie Comparables (D2/D3)

Historical goalies with similar age-adjusted SVe profiles who went on to play NCAA D2/D3.

Name Junior League Junior SV% Adj SVe College Div SV% GAA
Eric Daniel USPHL-Premier 92.0% 82.8% King's D3 86.9% 6.55
Dario Cantini OJHL 89.8% 83.3% Lebanon Valley D3 86.1% 5.00
Jack McGovern CCHL 90.2% 83.3% Wentworth D3 90.2% 3.16
Tyler Sayger NCDC 89.4% 83.4% King's D3 90.5% 4.40
Tyler Roy USPHL-Premier 91.1% 81.8% Neumann D3 87.2% 3.68

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.