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

Jakob Peterson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2002-04-18 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
2020-21 Drayton Valley Thunder AJHL 13 0 2 2 0.154 0.0516 0.0516 0.1423 0.1423
2021-22 Amarillo Wranglers NAHL 26 3 15 18 0.692 0.2544 0.2521 0.7307 0.7242
■ 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
2024-25 Northern Michigan D1 CCHA SR 29 2 4 6 0.207
2023-24 Northern Michigan D1 CCHA JR 18 0 1 1 0.056
2022-23 Northern Michigan D1 CCHA SO 3 0 0 0 0.000
2021-22 Northern Michigan D1 CCHA FR 8 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

40%
NCAA D1
5%
NCAA D2/D3
20%
Age-Out / Club
35%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#7797
Defenseman overall
#1805
Defenseman born in 2002

D1 Comparables

Jared Kolquist
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Christopher Dienes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Victor Björkung
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Connor Murphy
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ Cornell (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Tucker Poolman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.44 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Craig Kitto
Williams · 2009-10
0.846 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Nate Scurfield
Lawrence · 2010-11
0.471 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ivan Galaguzov
Lawrence · 2017-18
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.