← New Search ↗ Social Card

Chase Van Allen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1992-07-30 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 Alaska Avalanche NAHL 1 0 0 0 0.000
2009-10 Alaska Avalanche NAHL 39 2 5 7 0.179 0.0659 0.0724 0.1895 0.2082
2010-11 Alaska Avalanche NAHL 53 0 19 19 0.358 0.1317 0.1380 0.3784 0.3965
2011-12 Alberni Valley Bulldogs BCHL 57 3 18 21 0.368 0.1419 0.1392 0.5361 0.5260
2012-13 Alberni Valley Bulldogs BCHL 53 7 25 32 0.604 0.2326 0.2172 0.8787 0.8205
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
2016-17 Alaska Anchorage D1 WCHA 34 3 6 9 0.265
2015-16 Alaska Anchorage D1 WCHA 34 3 11 14 0.412
2014-15 Alaska Anchorage D1 WCHA 31 2 11 13 0.419
2013-14 Alaska Anchorage D1 WCHA 30 0 8 8 0.267
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.18
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.27
2013-14 · Alaska Anchorage
+51.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#8300
Defenseman overall
#1198
Defenseman born in 1992

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2006-07
1.346 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Anna Maria · 2021-22
0.850 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Endicott · 2016-17
1.000 Elite
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.