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

Michael Eyssimont Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-09-09 Country: USA
Signed Professionally

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
2012-13 — USHL 4 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2013-14 — USHL 58 14 16 30 0.517 0.3179 0.3397 1.5238 1.6282
2014-15 — USHL 60 22 27 49 0.817 0.5020 0.5117 2.4062 2.4528
■ 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 St. Cloud State D1 NCHC — 39 17 22 39 1.000
2016-17 St. Cloud State D1 NCHC — 36 14 16 30 0.833
2015-16 St. Cloud State D1 NCHC — 40 14 19 33 0.825
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.38
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.82
2015-16 · St. Cloud State
+117.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Luke Johnson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.81 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tony Calderone
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.69 PPG
→ Michigan (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.43 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jason Salvaggio
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.41 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alex Roos
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.49 D1 FR PPG)
0.46 Average
NCAAe PPG
C.J. Smith
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.98 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.90 D1 FR PPG)
0.42 Elite
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nick Ford
Elmira · 2014-15
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Joseph Fiorino
Southern New Hampshire · 2016-17
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jason Kalinowski
Endicott · 2015-16
1.310 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.