← New Search ↗ Social Card

Adam Boatter Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2007-01-26 Country: Canada
Colorado College
NCHC D1

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 Salmon Arm Silverbacks BCHL 3 0 0 0 0.000
2023-24 Salmon Arm Silverbacks BCHL 42 2 9 11 0.262 0.1009 0.1123 0.3811 0.4243
2024-25 BCHL 53 0 13 13 0.245 0.0945 0.1005 0.3570 0.3795
2025-26 Chilliwack Chiefs BCHL 54 5 17 22 0.407 0.1570 0.1611 0.5929 0.6085
Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

32%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
18%
Age-Out / Club
50%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#14204
Defenseman overall
#1842
Defenseman born in 2007
#2415
in BCHL

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Miami
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Penn State (0.69 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

Colorado College Alumni similar profiles who attended this school

USHS-MN 2019-20
0.16
actual FR PPG at Colorado College
USHL 2016-17
0.63
actual FR PPG at Colorado College
USHL 2023-24
0.10
actual FR PPG at Colorado College
USHL 2016-17
0.09
actual FR PPG at Colorado College

D2/3 Comparables

Lawrence · 2010-11
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Fitchburg State · 2018-19
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Framingham State · 2006-07
0.818 Strong
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.