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

Jide Idowu Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1992-03-05 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
2010-11 Indiana Ice USHL 8 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2012-13 Carleton Place Canadians CCHL 37 5 18 23 0.622 0.1774 0.1608 0.4812 0.4362
■ 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 Utica D3 UCHC SO 23 1 4 5 0.217
2013-14 Utica D3 UCHC FR 14 1 3 4 0.286
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.29
2013-14 · Utica
+79.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#5272
Defenseman overall
#1011
Defenseman born in 1992

D1 Comparables

Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Michael Holland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Drew Brevig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Carter Foguth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Aaron Ryback
Concordia · 2015-16
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Trevor Veneklase
SUNY Cortland · 2018-19
0.400 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Evan Hesse
Augsburg · 2013-14
0.577 Average
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.