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

Jacob Olson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1997-02-05 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
2013-14 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 2 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2014-15 Hill-Murray School USHS-MN 25 7 18 25 1.000 0.1266 0.1198 0.2429 0.2298
■ 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 32 0 3 3 0.094
2017-18 Harvard D1 ECAC JR 24 0 4 4 0.167
2016-17 Harvard D1 ECAC SO 35 1 5 6 0.171
2015-16 Harvard D1 ECAC FR 24 1 1 2 0.083
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.08
2015-16 · Harvard
-26.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3958
Defenseman overall
#862
Defenseman born in 1997

D1 Comparables

Alex Smith
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Clint Lewis
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Cornell (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Alec McCrea
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Cornell (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Steven Santini
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Boston College (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Josh Couturier
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Boston College (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Adam Young
Manhattanville · 2006-07
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Alex Way
Concordia · 2015-16
0.391 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Rob Sheehan
King's · 2017-18
0.240 Developing
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.