Jordan Gross Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-05-09 Country: USA

Set Commitment

School

Type

Date (optional)

Detected conference: () — projections will update automatically.

Notes (optional)

Projecting as:

Show:

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
2011-12	Green Bay Gamblers	USHL	6	2	0	2	0.333	0.1966	0.2166	1.0010	1.1027
2012-13	Green Bay Gamblers	USHL	64	7	24	31	0.484	0.2857	0.2995	1.4548	1.5251
2013-14	Green Bay Gamblers	USHL	50	2	23	25	0.500	0.2949	0.2954	1.5017	1.5041
2024-25	Dinamo Minsk	KHL	66	7	33	40	0.606	1.5152	1.3091	8.3513	7.2152

■ 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
2017-18	Notre Dame	D1	BigTen	SR	40	10	20	30	0.750
2016-17	Notre Dame	D1	BigTen	JR	40	10	22	32	0.800
2015-16	Notre Dame	D1	BigTen	SO	37	9	22	31	0.838
2014-15	Notre Dame	D1	BigTen	FR	42	7	21	28	0.667

Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year

Projected PPG

0.28

before college

→

Actual FR PPG

0.67

2014-15 · Notre Dame

+137.8% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

🏒 NHL / Pro Track — production profile is consistent with players who bypassed or minimized college hockey

NCAA D1

NCAA D2/D3

100%

NHL / Pro

NCAAe Rankings

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.