← New Search ↗ Social Card

Sean Bunting Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2000-05-23 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
2018-19 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 43 0 1 1 0.023 0.0137 0.0138 0.0686 0.0690
2019-20 Langley Rivermen BCHL 50 4 11 15 0.300 0.1156 0.1156 0.4371 0.4371
2020-21 Shreveport Mudbugs NAHL 54 10 14 24 0.444 0.1579 0.1579 0.4666 0.4666
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
2025-26 Wisconsin-Stevens Point D3 WIAC SR 25 6 9 15 0.600
2024-25 Wisconsin-Stevens Point D3 WIAC JR 22 6 6 12 0.545
2023-24 Wisconsin-Stevens Point D3 WIAC SO 28 7 10 17 0.607
2022-23 Wisconsin-Stevens Point D3 WIAC FR 14 1 2 3 0.214
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.01
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2022-23 · Wisconsin-Stevens Point
+1716.1% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

10%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
90%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#42605
Forward overall
#2355
Forward born in 2000

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Bentley (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.03 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Canisius
0.08 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

SUNY Oswego · 2006-07
0.200 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Gustavus Adolphus · 2012-13
0.400 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
UMass Boston · 2015-16
0.280 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.