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

C.J. Smith Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-12-01 Country: USA
Signed Professionally
Barys Astana · KHL

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
2011-12 Austin Bruins NAHL 53 13 14 27 0.509 0.1872 0.2088 0.5377 0.5998
2012-13 Austin Bruins NAHL 60 30 29 59 0.983 0.3613 0.3849 1.0379 1.1057
2013-14 — USHL 59 27 18 45 0.763 0.4499 0.4408 2.2907 2.2444
2023-24 JYP Liiga 33 8 12 20 0.606 1.5152 1.3132 5.2101 4.5155
2024-25 Barys Astana KHL 9 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
2018-19 Wisconsin-River Falls D1 BigTen FR 11 0 2 2 0.182
2018-19 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen FR 11 0 2 2 0.182
2016-17 UMass Lowell D1 HockeyEast JR 41 23 28 51 1.244
2015-16 UMass Lowell D1 HockeyEast SO 40 17 22 39 0.975
2014-15 UMass Lowell D1 HockeyEast FR 39 16 19 35 0.897
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.36
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.90
2014-15 · UMass Lowell
+150.5% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

🏒 NHL / Pro Track — production profile is consistent with players who bypassed or minimized college hockey
0%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
100%
NHL / Pro

NCAAe Rankings

#1804
Forward overall
#110
Forward born in 1994

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.