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

Michael Cifelli Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-02-11 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 Texas Tornado NAHL 41 7 3 10 0.244 0.0896 0.0954 0.2574 0.2740
2007-08 Texas Tornado NAHL 51 7 6 13 0.255 0.0937 0.0951 0.2690 0.2732
2008-09 St. Louis Bandits NAHL 2 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
■ 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
2011-12 Castleton D3 LittleEast — 10 1 2 3 0.300
2010-11 Castleton D3 LittleEast — 18 3 4 7 0.389
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.39
2010-11 · Castleton
+377.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#46691
Forward overall
#1558
Forward born in 1989
#5256
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

David Parrottino
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Canisius
0.08 No data
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Boucher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tim Lappin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Brown (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average
NCAAe PPG
Seth Adams
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ryan McMurphy
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Bentley (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Fritz Belisle
Augsburg · 2016-17
0.240 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Bellehumeur
Worcester State · 2022-23
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Kassab
Lebanon Valley · 2016-17
0.176 Developing
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.