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

Brian Nehring Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-10-28 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
2009-10 Albert Lea Thunder NAHL 53 10 19 29 0.547 0.2168 0.2084 0.5745 0.5522
■ 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-Eau Claire D3 BigTen SR 27 2 8 10 0.370
2012-13 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — JR 30 3 7 10 0.333
2011-12 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — SO 13 3 2 5 0.385
2010-11 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — FR 21 1 2 3 0.143
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.18
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.14
2010-11 · Wisconsin-Eau Claire
-19.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#25680
Forward overall
#851
Forward born in 1989
#2097
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Siiro
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jonathan Grebosky
Concordia · 2013-14
0.769 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
James Nash
Southern New Hampshire · 2018-19
0.652 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Erik Cooper
St. Norbert · 2011-12
0.667 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.