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

Tyler Miller Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2004-09-16 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 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 10 0 1 1 0.100 0.0335 0.0335 0.0925 0.0925
2021-22 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 34 2 4 6 0.176 0.0592 0.0645 0.1633 0.1780
2022-23 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 58 9 31 40 0.690 0.2313 0.2407 0.6382 0.6640
2023-24 Waterloo Black Hawks USHL 62 9 21 30 0.484 0.2855 0.2768 1.4533 1.4088
■ 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 Michigan Tech D1 CCHA — 39 3 10 13 0.333
2024-25 Michigan Tech D1 CCHA — 1 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

78%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
10%
Age-Out / Club
12%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#4159
Defenseman overall
#1063
Defenseman born in 2004

D1 Comparables

Mike McKee
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Murray
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.74 PPG
→ Hamline (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Davis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Princeton (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Christian Neumann
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ UConn (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Niklas Nevalainen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.23 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jack Billings
Salve Regina · 2014-15
1.381 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Michael Hill
Saint Mary's (MN) · 2009-10
1.200 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Bloom
University of New England · 2011-12
1.654 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.