← New Search ↗ Social Card

Peteris Bulans Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2005-03-08 Country: Latvia
Bowling Green
CCHA D1

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
2022-23 QMJHL 31 5 13 18 0.581 0.2852 0.2980 1.5504 1.6200
2023-24 Chicoutimi Saguenéens QMJHL 59 4 38 42 0.712 0.3498 0.3483 1.9010 1.8926
2024-25 Chicoutimi Saguenéens QMJHL 54 5 19 24 0.444 0.2183 0.2066 1.1867 1.1231
2025-26 Chicoutimi Saguenéens QMJHL 62 12 28 40 0.645 0.3170 0.2850 1.7229 1.5491
Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

30%
NCAA D1
5%
NCAA D2/D3
15%
Age-Out / Club
50%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#3374
Defenseman overall
#873
Defenseman born in 2005
#568
in QMJHL

D1 Comparables

QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.51 D1 FR PPG)
0.43 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bowling Green
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG

Bowling Green Alumni similar profiles who attended this school

USHL 2015-16
0.56
actual FR PPG at Bowling Green
NAHL 2022-23
0.05
actual FR PPG at Bowling Green
USHL 2024-25
0.06
actual FR PPG at Bowling Green
NAHL 2015-16
0.00
actual FR PPG at Bowling Green

D2/3 Comparables

SUNY Oswego · 2004-05
0.926 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Saint Anselm · 2002-03
1.375 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Adrian · 2018-19
1.103 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.