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

Jeff Burke Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1989-06-29 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
2008-09 Amarillo Wranglers NAHL 48 2 5 7 0.146 0.0518 0.0510 0.1531 0.1508
2009-10 Amarillo Wranglers NAHL 40 0 6 6 0.150 0.0533 0.0503 0.1575 0.1488
■ 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
2013-14 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen SR 26 3 9 12 0.462
2012-13 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 — JR 27 2 10 12 0.444
2011-12 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 — SO 21 4 2 6 0.286
2010-11 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 — FR 25 3 4 7 0.280
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.05
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.28
2010-11 · Wisconsin-River Falls
+487.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#24320
Defenseman overall
#1884
Defenseman born in 1989
#6438
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 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
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 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

D2/3 Comparables

David Van Iterson
UMass Boston · 2024-25
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Brayden Fryfogle
Canton · 2023-24
0.478 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Moore
Lawrence · 2001-02
0.407 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.