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

Colby Jones Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1985-01-25 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 Texarkana Bandits NAHL 53 1 9 10 0.189 0.0748 0.0756 0.1981 0.2003
2004-05 Texarkana Bandits NAHL 52 6 15 21 0.404 0.1600 0.1538 0.4239 0.4074
2005-06 Texarkana Bandits NAHL 48 5 6 11 0.229 0.0908 0.0828 0.2406 0.2193
■ 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 Nichols D3 — SO 15 1 7 8 0.533
2006-07 Nichols D3 — FR 26 2 4 6 0.231
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.23
2006-07 · Nichols
+142.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#44684
Forward overall
#1377
Forward born in 1985
#5046
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Darin Pandovski
Elmira · 2005-06
0.154 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Wilkins
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2011-12
0.133 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Larry Niland
Elmira · 2018-19
0.250 Developing
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.