← New Search ↗ Social Card

Adam Goodsir Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1998-09-22 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
2015-16 Wichita Falls Wildcats NAHL 59 28 17 45 0.763 0.2802 0.3107 0.8061 0.8938
2016-17 Tri-City Storm USHL 59 16 10 26 0.441 0.2600 0.2661 1.3224 1.3536
2017-18 Tri-City Storm USHL 59 12 8 20 0.339 0.2000 0.1948 1.0172 0.9907
■ 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
2022-23 Long Island Univ. D1 AHA — 35 15 19 34 0.971
2021-22 Michigan State D1 BigTen — 36 2 2 4 0.111
2020-21 Michigan State D1 BigTen JR 25 1 3 4 0.160
2019-20 Michigan State D1 BigTen SO 36 0 4 4 0.111
2018-19 Michigan State D1 BigTen FR 34 3 3 6 0.176
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.19
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.18
2018-19 · Michigan State
-7.7% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

40%
NCAA D1
5%
NCAA D2/D3
55%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#21703
Forward overall
#1061
Forward born in 1998

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.79 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ RPI (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Army (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Roger Williams · 2023-24
0.526 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Norwich · 2018-19
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
SUNY Oswego · 2022-23
0.591 Average
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.