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

Charlie Coyle Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-03-02 Country: USA
2010 · Round 1, Pick #28  ·  San Jose Sharks San Jose Sharks
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
2009-10 — NTDP-U18 4 1 0 1 0.250 0.1858 0.1790 0.9328 0.8985
2011-12 — QMJHL 23 15 23 38 1.652 0.8117 0.7674 4.4119 4.1713
■ 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
2011-12 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 16 3 11 14 0.875
2010-11 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 37 7 19 26 0.703
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.70
2010-11 · Boston University
+358.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2288
Forward overall
#127
Forward born in 1992

D1 Comparables

Kyle Novak
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.65 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Mike Szmatula
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.21 PPG
→ Northeastern (1.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.65 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Zach Stepan
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.39 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.60 D1 FR PPG)
0.81 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Peter Quenneville
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.11 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.80 D1 FR PPG)
0.65 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Toninato
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.09 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.64 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Filimon Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
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.