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

Phil Cherneski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1980-08-11 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
2000-01 Swan Valley Stampeders MJHL 26 8 17 25 0.962 0.2720 0.2544 0.6058 0.5666
■ 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
2004-05 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — SR 26 11 13 24 0.923
2003-04 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — JR 27 14 16 30 1.111
2002-03 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — SO 25 6 8 14 0.560
2001-02 Wisconsin-Eau Claire D3 — FR 23 8 9 17 0.739
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.74
2001-02 · Wisconsin-Eau Claire
+239.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#23550
Forward overall
#413
Forward born in 1980

D1 Comparables

Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jayson Angus
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.66 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cody Marooney
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Beau Walker
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Sacred Heart (0.40 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Doucet
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Air Force (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

David Ripple
SUNY Geneseo · 2011-12
0.957 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Kit Sitterley
UMass Boston · 2011-12
1.037 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Jack Sheehan
Framingham State · 2015-16
0.400 Average
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.