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

Brien Thompson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-02-05 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 Chicago Hitmen NAHL 12 0 1 1 0.083 0.0330 0.0338 0.0875 0.0897
■ 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
2017-18 Nichols D3 CNE SR 29 0 2 2 0.069
2016-17 Nichols D3 CNE JR 9 1 3 4 0.444
2015-16 Nichols D3 CNE SO 20 2 4 6 0.300
2014-15 Nichols D3 CNE FR 4 0 2 2 0.500
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.03
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.50
2014-15 · Nichols
+1467.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#19915
Defenseman overall
#1897
Defenseman born in 1993
#5856
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Richard Buri
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.04 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.16 D1 FR PPG)
0.03 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Sam Piazza
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Michigan (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Niklas Folin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Cliff Watson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Zach Frye
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.19 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nick Siffringer
Trinity · 2018-19
0.292 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Dustin Laren
Connecticut College · 2008-09
0.100 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Wilkins
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2009-10
0.133 Developing
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.