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

Michael Floodstrand Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1997-01-06 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
2013-14 U.S. National U17 Team NTDP-U18 40 9 9 18 0.450 0.3345 0.3360 1.6791 1.6868
2014-15 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 58 6 24 30 0.517 0.3844 0.3676 1.9299 1.8453
■ 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 Harvard D1 ECAC SR 33 6 5 11 0.333
2017-18 Harvard D1 ECAC JR 33 4 6 10 0.303
2016-17 Harvard D1 ECAC SO 23 1 2 3 0.130
2015-16 Harvard D1 ECAC FR 25 2 9 11 0.440
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.30
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.44
2015-16 · Harvard
+44.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13644
Forward overall
#607
Forward born in 1997

D1 Comparables

Evan Allen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ Michigan (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.38 Developing
NCAAe PPG
C.J. Smith
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.98 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.90 D1 FR PPG)
0.38 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Kelleher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.44 Average
NCAAe PPG
Drew Melanson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ RPI (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Jake Jackson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.09 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Zach Tarantino
UMass Dartmouth · 2017-18
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Craig Kennedy
Hamilton · 2000-01
1.353 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Gus Katsuras
Hamilton · 2000-01
1.400 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.