← New Search ↗ Social Card

Taylor Schneider Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1998-02-18 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
2014-15 Lakeville North High USHS-MN 25 14 16 30 1.200 0.1519 0.1515 0.2914 0.2907
2016-17 St. Cloud Norsemen NAHL 57 15 14 29 0.509 0.1869 0.1916 0.5378 0.5512
2017-18 Dubuque Fighting Saints USHL 59 4 10 14 0.237 0.1400 0.1322 0.7121 0.6725
■ 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
2022-23 Bowling Green D1 CCHA GR 36 11 13 24 0.667
2021-22 Bowling Green D1 CCHA SR 37 8 22 30 0.811
2020-21 Bowling Green D1 WCHA JR 31 10 9 19 0.613
2019-20 Bowling Green D1 WCHA SO 38 8 13 21 0.553
2018-19 Bowling Green D1 WCHA FR 40 7 6 13 0.325
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.33
2018-19 · Bowling Green
+143.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

25%
NCAA D1
5%
NCAA D2/D3
2%
Age-Out / Club
68%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#28019
Forward overall
#1386
Forward born in 1998

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Notre Dame
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

UMass Dartmouth · 2023-24
1.454 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Canton · 2022-23
0.545 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Manhattanville · 2009-10
0.812 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.