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

Randall Smisko Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1980-12-10 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
2000-01 — BCHL 65 46 45 91 1.400 0.5449 0.5149 2.0416 1.9290
■ 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
2004-05 Wisconsin-Superior D3 — JR 25 10 16 26 1.040
2003-04 Wisconsin-Superior D3 — SO 27 15 13 28 1.037
2002-03 Wisconsin-Superior D3 — SO 26 8 8 16 0.615
2001-02 Wisconsin-Superior D3 — FR 34 17 17 34 1.000
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.48
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.00
2001-02 · Wisconsin-Superior
+108.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2004
Forward overall
#59
Forward born in 1980
#38
in BCHL

D1 Comparables

Gerald Mayhew
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.75 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.44 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Chad McDonald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.48 D1 FR PPG)
0.47 Average
NCAAe PPG
Michael Vecchione
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Union (0.89 D1 FR PPG)
0.57 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Sean Gaffney
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.14 PPG
→ UConn (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.40 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jared VanWormer
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.27 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.45 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Niko Schoner
Canton · 2022-23
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Nicholas Cyprian
Chatham · 2021-22
0.880 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Lee Stubbs
Manhattanville · 2000-01
1.115 Elite
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.