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

Luke Rivera Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-04-18 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
2013-14 Hartford Jr. Wolfpack EHL 23 4 6 10 0.435 0.0933 0.0923 — —
2014-15 Hartford Jr. Wolfpack EHL 39 12 19 31 0.795 0.1706 0.1607 0.3893 0.3668
■ 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 Fredonia D3 — SR 24 11 5 16 0.667
2016-17 Fredonia D3 — SO 24 5 3 8 0.333
2015-16 Fredonia D3 — FR 18 6 5 11 0.611
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.61
2015-16 · Fredonia
+435.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#29772
Forward overall
#1223
Forward born in 1994
#591
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Bob Kinne
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Bradley Duwe
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Alaska Anchorage (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Clint Carlisle
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.78 PPG
→ Army (0.52 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ethan Nauman
Wisconsin-Eau Claire · 2011-12
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Derek Humphreys
Concordia Wisconsin · 2021-22
0.286 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Alex Borowiec
Lebanon Valley · 2018-19
0.286 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.