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

Nick Novak Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1987-01-11 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 Fairbanks Ice Dogs NAHL 1 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2006-07 Soo Indians NOJHL 43 4 22 26 0.605 0.1538 0.1486 0.2509 0.2424
2007-08 Aurora Tigers OJHL 49 6 24 30 0.612 0.1839 0.1641 0.4191 0.3740
■ 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 UMass Boston D3 — FR 18 0 3 3 0.167
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.17
2008-09 · UMass Boston
+11.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#8700
Defenseman overall
#1039
Defenseman born in 1987

D1 Comparables

Michael Holland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Carter Foguth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ignat Belov
Hobart · 2021-22
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Aaron Deady
Becker · 2016-17
0.292 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jesse Modahl
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2001-02
0.733 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.