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

Brandon Scero Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1986-05-05 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
2003-04 USNTDP Juniors NAHL 22 12 5 17 0.773 0.2745 0.2950 0.8113 0.8718
■ 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
2007-08 Nebraska Omaha D1 — SR 37 16 18 34 0.919
2006-07 Nebraska Omaha D1 — JR 38 18 16 34 0.895
2005-06 Nebraska Omaha D1 — SO 34 10 13 23 0.676
2004-05 Nebraska Omaha D1 — FR 38 11 12 23 0.605
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.25
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.61
2004-05 · Nebraska Omaha
+139.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#15089
Forward overall
#509
Forward born in 1986
#724
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Mike Marnell
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.49 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average
NCAAe PPG
Frederik Tiffels
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.66 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Luke Stork
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Polino
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.40 PPG
→ RPI (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Scott Conway
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Penn State (0.76 D1 FR PPG)
0.36 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jake Cox
Southern New Hampshire · 2014-15
0.808 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Wood
Utica · 2017-18
0.636 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Silcoff
Middlebury · 2010-11
0.960 Strong
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.