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

Mike Schumacher Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1987-05-19 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
2005-06 Bozeman Ice Dogs NAHL 46 12 14 26 0.565 0.2077 0.2133 0.5966 0.6127
2006-07 Wichita Falls Wildcats NAHL 47 10 5 15 0.319 0.1172 0.1146 0.3368 0.3293
2007-08 Fargo-Moorhead Jets NAHL 48 18 11 29 0.604 0.2220 0.2062 0.6377 0.5922
■ 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
2008-09 Hamline D3 MIAC FR 10 0 2 2 0.200
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.20
2008-09 · Hamline
+37.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#27921
Forward overall
#906
Forward born in 1987
#2393
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Davey Middleton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Justin Parizek
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.93 PPG
→ Nebraska Omaha (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Nelson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Noah Carpenter
Colby · 2024-25
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Casey Roepke
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2022-23
0.731 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ethan Nitkin
UMass Boston · 2017-18
0.652 Strong
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.