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

Tanner Kero Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-07-24 Country: USA
Signed Professionally
Kölner Haie · DEL

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 Marquette Rangers NAHL 57 32 19 51 0.895 0.3287 0.3609 0.9444 1.0370
2010-11 Fargo Force USHL 55 14 23 37 0.673 0.3968 0.4003 2.0204 2.0381
2024-25 HV71 SHL 52 9 13 22 0.423 1.0577 0.7588 5.5209 3.9607
2025-26 Kölner Haie DEL 41 11 18 29 0.707 1.7683 1.5281 5.9966 5.1820
■ 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
2014-15 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA SR 41 20 26 46 1.122
2013-14 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA JR 40 15 10 25 0.625
2012-13 Michigan D1 CCHA-orig — 33 11 13 24 0.727
2012-13 Michigan Tech D1 CCHA SO 33 11 13 24 0.727
2011-12 Michigan D1 CCHA-orig — 39 9 7 16 0.410
2011-12 Michigan Tech D1 CCHA FR 39 9 7 16 0.410
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.33
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.41
2011-12 · Michigan
+24.6% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

🏒 NHL / Pro Track — production profile is consistent with players who bypassed or minimized college hockey
0%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
100%
NHL / Pro

NCAAe Rankings

#2431
Forward overall
#137
Forward born in 1992

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
Brandon Osmundson
Utica · 2018-19
1.448 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.