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

Connor Gengle Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2005-02-16 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
2023-24 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 44 6 21 27 0.614 0.2058 0.2087 0.5678 0.5759
2024-25 Sherwood Park Crusaders BCHL 54 14 40 54 1.000 0.3853 0.3722 1.4553 1.4059
■ 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 30 2 3 5 0.167
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.29
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.17
2025-26 · Lindenwood
-42.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

20%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
15%
Age-Out / Club
65%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2830
Defenseman overall
#702
Defenseman born in 2005

D1 Comparables

Barrett Kaib
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Providence (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Victor Newell
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Harvard (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Connor Murphy
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ Cornell (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Fleming
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Van Voorhis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Denver (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Scott Cuthrell
Nichols · 2013-14
0.704 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Randall Smisko
Wisconsin-Superior · 2000-01
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Michael Hill
Saint Mary's (MN) · 2009-10
1.200 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.