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

Cooper Pierson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2005-01-06 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 Muskegon Lumberjacks USHL 61 7 14 21 0.344 0.2031 0.2000 1.0341 1.0183
2024-25 Muskegon Lumberjacks USHL 25 4 4 8 0.320 0.1888 0.1763 0.9611 0.8974
■ 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 St. Lawrence D1 ECAC FR 34 5 15 20 0.588
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.59
2025-26 · St. Lawrence
+269.9% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

25%
NCAA D1
22%
NCAA D2/D3
40%
Age-Out / Club
12%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#23362
Forward overall
#1306
Forward born in 2005
#2279
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Zach Heintz
Adrian · 2018-19
1.179 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Mitchell Herlihey
SUNY Oswego · 2013-14
1.080 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Trevor Boyd
Adrian · 2014-15
1.036 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.