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

Ben Campbell Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-05-24 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
2012-13 Fairbanks Ice Dogs NAHL 54 3 8 11 0.204 0.0748 0.0777 0.2150 0.2234
2013-14 — NAHL 61 3 15 18 0.295 0.1084 0.1072 0.3115 0.3081
2014-15 — NAHL 57 7 17 24 0.421 0.1547 0.1449 0.4445 0.4163
■ 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
2018-19 Nichols D1 CNE SR 26 4 9 13 0.500
2018-19 Nichols D3 CNE SR 26 4 9 13 0.500
2017-18 Nichols D3 CNE JR 30 5 8 13 0.433
2016-17 Nichols D3 CNE SO 27 3 10 13 0.481
2015-16 Nichols D3 CNE FR 24 2 7 9 0.375
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.38
2015-16 · Nichols
+205.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#12601
Defenseman overall
#1601
Defenseman born in 1994
#4231
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Connor Geshan
Western New England · 2017-18
0.375 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Riley Christensen
St. Norbert · 2014-15
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Brayden Sampson
Aurora · 2017-18
0.518 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.