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

Brogan Rafferty Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-05-28 Country: USA
Signed Professionally
Växjö Lakers HC · SHL

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 Amarillo Wranglers NAHL 1 1 1 2 2.000 0.7348 0.8007 2.1110 2.3003
2013-14 Coulee Region Chill NAHL 53 3 19 22 0.415 0.1525 0.1585 0.4381 0.4554
2014-15 Coulee Region Chill NAHL 56 4 28 32 0.571 0.2099 0.2072 0.6031 0.5953
2015-16 Central Illinois Flying Aces USHL 60 2 26 28 0.467 0.2753 0.2501 1.4017 1.2735
2025-26 Växjö Lakers HC SHL 48 12 24 36 0.750 1.8750 1.8750 9.7865 9.7865
■ 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 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC JR 38 4 20 24 0.632
2017-18 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC SO 38 4 13 17 0.447
2016-17 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC FR 40 2 22 24 0.600
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.60
2016-17 · Quinnipiac
+172.9% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 19 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

D2/3 Comparables

Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Filimon Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 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.