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

Nick Neville Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-06-03 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
2011-12 Texas Tornado NAHL 59 5 24 29 0.491 0.1825 0.1899 0.5204 0.5416
2012-13 Texas Tornado NAHL 60 7 28 35 0.583 0.2166 0.2146 0.6176 0.6118
■ 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
2015-16 Denver D1 NCHC JR 10 1 0 1 0.100
2014-15 Denver D1 NCHC SO 14 1 1 2 0.143
2013-14 Denver D1 NCHC FR 30 0 3 3 0.100
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.19
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.10
2013-14 · Denver
-48.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3993
Defenseman overall
#758
Defenseman born in 1993
#1867
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Tucker Poolman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.44 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Nick
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Christopher Dienes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Average D
NCAAe PPG
James Roll
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dan Molenaar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Caleb Suderman
Concordia · 2008-09
0.630 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Don Olivieri
Utica · 2010-11
0.815 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Kulas
Neumann · 2018-19
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.