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

Nate McIsaac Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2004-06-01 Country: Canada
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
2023-24 Penticton Vees BCHL 13 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2024-25 Penticton Vees BCHL 22 0 1 1 0.045 0.0175 0.0163 0.0663 0.0617
■ 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 Bethel D3 MIAC FR 14 1 0 1 0.071
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.02
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.07
2025-26 · Bethel
+363.6% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

12%
NCAA D1
12%
NCAA D2/D3
72%
Age-Out / Club
0%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#30474
Defenseman overall
#4562
Defenseman born in 2004

D1 Comparables

Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Carter Foguth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.04 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mark Esposito
Amherst · 2015-16
0.167 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Derek Tillotson
Southern Maine · 2017-18
0.095 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Thomas Bishop
Suffolk · 2014-15
0.565 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.