← New Search ↗ Social Card

Brady McIsaac Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2004-12-16 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
2020-21 Alberni Valley Bulldogs BCHL 17 1 1 2 0.118 0.0453 0.0453 0.1711 0.1711
2021-22 Alberni Valley Bulldogs BCHL 1 0 1 1 1.000 0.3853 0.4249 1.4553 1.6048
2022-23 Alberni Valley Bulldogs BCHL 34 2 4 6 0.176 0.0680 0.0717 0.2569 0.2707
2023-24 Alberni Valley Bulldogs BCHL 52 9 12 21 0.404 0.1556 0.1568 0.5877 0.5923
2024-25 Alberni Valley Bulldogs BCHL 52 15 27 42 0.808 0.3112 0.2980 1.1754 1.1255
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 Lindenwood D1 CCHA FR 21 2 3 5 0.238
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.21
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.24
2025-26 · Lindenwood
+15.2% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

48%
NCAA D1
15%
NCAA D2/D3
28%
Age-Out / Club
10%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#28473
Forward overall
#1674
Forward born in 2004
#1548
in BCHL

D1 Comparables

NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.63 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Finlandia · 2013-14
0.409 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Fredonia · 2022-23
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Endicott · 2014-15
1.364 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.