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

Dan McDougall Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1990-08-27 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 Marquette Rangers NAHL 3 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2010-11 Amarillo Bulls NAHL 55 3 19 22 0.400 0.1485 0.1413 0.4235 0.4030
■ 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
2014-15 Neumann D3 MAC SR 24 3 10 13 0.542
2013-14 Neumann D3 MAC JR 24 2 9 11 0.458
2012-13 Neumann D3 MAC SO 26 1 7 8 0.308
2011-12 Neumann D3 MAC FR 26 0 9 9 0.346
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.35
2011-12 · Neumann
+159.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7234
Defenseman overall
#1150
Defenseman born in 1990
#3241
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Jake Flynn
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UConn (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Casey Nelson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Zink
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Artur Terchiyev
Wisconsin-Superior · 2017-18
0.630 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Kent Detlefsen
Wisconsin-Superior · 2007-08
0.448 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Bobby Cahill
Hobart · 2005-06
0.444 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.