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

John Regnart Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-03-30 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
2012-13 Austin Bruins NAHL 2 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2013-14 Coulee Region Chill NAHL 25 0 4 4 0.160 0.0594 0.0583 0.1694 0.1663
2014-15 Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Knights EHL 40 3 27 30 0.750 0.1610 0.1512 0.3673 0.3451
■ 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 UMass Boston D3 HockeyEast SR 20 3 8 11 0.550
2017-18 UMass Boston D3 HockeyEast JR 15 3 1 4 0.267
2016-17 UMass Boston D3 HockeyEast SO 14 0 3 3 0.214
2015-16 UMass Boston D3 HockeyEast FR 2 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#10973
Defenseman overall
#1478
Defenseman born in 1994

D1 Comparables

Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Drew Brevig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Michael Holland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Carter Foguth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Michael Lindberg
SUNY Cortland · 2015-16
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Simson
Fredonia · 2008-09
0.438 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler VanKleef
Curry · 2012-13
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.