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

Bret Adams Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1982-09-29 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
2001-02 Green Bay Gamblers USHL 53 7 6 13 0.245 0.1562 0.1558 0.7351 0.7331
2002-03 Green Bay Gamblers USHL 26 4 5 9 0.346 0.2205 0.2062 1.0375 0.9704
■ 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
2005-06 Curry D3 — JR 28 10 13 23 0.821
2004-05 Curry D3 — SO 27 14 22 36 1.333
2003-04 Curry D3 — FR 29 17 34 51 1.759
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.76
2003-04 · Curry
+1004.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#20968
Forward overall
#639
Forward born in 1982
#2874
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Ryan Doucet
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Air Force (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ian Miller
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jayson Angus
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.66 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Emil Romig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Denver (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Trever Hertz
Utica · 2009-10
0.808 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Malcolm Arseneau
Fredonia · 2018-19
0.818 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Trevor Geiger
St. Scholastica · 2004-05
0.923 Strong
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.