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

Colin Hoey Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1988-09-11 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
2006-07 Bismarck Bobcats NAHL 54 19 19 38 0.704 0.2500 0.2609 0.7423 0.7747
2007-08 Bismarck Bobcats NAHL 30 5 9 14 0.467 0.1658 0.1649 0.4923 0.4896
■ 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
2012-13 Elmira D3 UCHC SR 12 2 1 3 0.250
2011-12 Elmira D3 UCHC JR 24 5 6 11 0.458
2010-11 Elmira D3 UCHC SO 25 5 9 14 0.560
2009-10 Elmira D3 UCHC FR 23 2 2 4 0.174
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.17
2009-10 · Elmira
-0.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#24824
Forward overall
#862
Forward born in 1988
#1914
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average
NCAAe PPG
Landon Smith
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.79 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Jake Wood
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ RPI (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Josh Erickson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG
C.J. Reuschlein
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Army (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jeffrey Gauld
Canton · 2016-17
0.818 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ron Lindgren
Aurora · 2012-13
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jordan Neduzak
Wisconsin-Superior · 2011-12
0.429 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.