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

Andrew Carls Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2003-10-04 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
2022-23 New Mexico Ice Wolves NAHL 48 4 10 14 0.292 0.1036 0.1052 0.3063 0.3109
■ 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 Hamline D3 MIAC SR 25 7 6 13 0.520
2024-25 Hamline D3 MIAC JR 23 3 7 10 0.435
2023-24 Hamline D3 MIAC SO 25 3 9 12 0.480
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.09
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.48
2023-24 · Hamline
+432.7% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

32%
NCAA D1
15%
NCAA D2/D3
20%
Age-Out / Club
32%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#43288
Forward overall
#2777
Forward born in 2003
#4737
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Hynes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Union (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Landon Smith
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.79 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Gareau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sebastian Weberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Colgate
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Alex Walker
UMass Dartmouth · 2023-24
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Garrett Sandberg
Concordia · 2018-19
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Zach Hill
Finlandia · 2012-13
0.000 No data
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.