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

Nathan Bryer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-02-24 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
2014-15 Corpus Christi IceRays NAHL 54 12 13 25 0.463 0.1701 0.1742 0.4887 0.5006
2015-16 Corpus Christi IceRays NAHL 60 6 11 17 0.283 0.1041 0.1020 0.2990 0.2930
2016-17 Corpus Christi IceRays NAHL 59 18 17 35 0.593 0.2179 0.2017 0.6261 0.5796
■ 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 Mercyhurst D1 AHA FR 12 2 1 3 0.250
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.25
2017-18 · Mercyhurst
+80.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#30389
Forward overall
#1279
Forward born in 1996
#2754
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Nelson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Davey Middleton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Bryden McGhee
Williams · 2009-10
0.550 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Cody Ganchar
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2011-12
0.862 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Vick Schlueter
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2007-08
0.435 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.