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

Cody Dixon Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1992-09-30 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
2011-12 Springfield Jr. Blues NAHL 49 2 18 20 0.408 0.1500 0.1511 0.4309 0.4339
2012-13 — NAHL 56 14 27 41 0.732 0.2690 0.2574 0.7727 0.7394
■ 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 Concordia D3 MIAC — 8 0 2 2 0.250
2015-16 Concordia (WI) D3 NCHA JR 8 0 2 2 0.250
2014-15 Concordia D3 MIAC — 25 4 10 14 0.560
2014-15 Concordia (WI) D3 NCHA SO 25 4 10 14 0.560
2013-14 UMass Boston D3 MASCAC FR 27 5 3 8 0.296
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.30
2013-14 · UMass Boston
+46.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4898
Defenseman overall
#827
Defenseman born in 1992
#1659
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Benjamin Gallacher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Valleau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bowling Green
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Van Voorhis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Denver (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tanner Hartman
Hobart · 2021-22
0.655 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Lucas Bombardier
Trine · 2014-15
0.560 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Zach Smith
Neumann · 2021-22
0.962 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.