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

Nic Kerdiles Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-01-11 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
2010-11 — NTDP-U18 60 20 17 37 0.617 0.4782 0.4847 2.2953 2.3266
2011-12 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 54 22 26 48 0.889 0.6893 0.6633 3.3084 3.1837
2012-13 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 2 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
■ 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
2013-14 Wisconsin D1 BigTen SO 28 15 23 38 1.357
2012-13 Wisconsin D1 WCHA-orig FR 32 11 22 33 1.031
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.55
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.03
2012-13 · Wisconsin
+87.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#5303
Forward overall
#267
Forward born in 1994
#10
in NTDP-U18

D1 Comparables

Tyler Kelleher
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.88 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.65 Average
NCAAe PPG
Zach Diamantoni
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.63 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Anthony Louis
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.04 PPG
→ Miami (0.69 D1 FR PPG)
0.66 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Brendan Harms
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.09 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.55 D1 FR PPG)
0.69 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Vinni Lettieri
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.92 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Filimon Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Osmundson
Utica · 2016-17
1.448 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arkhip 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.