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

Jordan Schindel Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1987-01-04 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
2005-06 Humboldt Broncos SJHL 11 1 1 2 0.182 0.0525 0.0536 0.1369 0.1399
2006-07 Humboldt Broncos SJHL 57 26 28 54 0.947 0.2737 0.2652 0.7132 0.6911
2007-08 Humboldt Broncos SJHL 58 30 35 65 1.121 0.3238 0.2969 0.8437 0.7737
■ 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
2008-09 Manhattanville D3 — FR 12 2 3 5 0.417
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.24
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.42
2008-09 · Manhattanville
+71.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#15008
Forward overall
#615
Forward born in 1987
#305
in SJHL

D1 Comparables

Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Perry D'Arrisso
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.02 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Aidan Cavallini
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ricky DeRosa
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.71 PPG
→ Penn State (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Average
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Walchuk
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.86 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Chase Nieuwendyk
SUNY Brockport · 2011-12
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Robert Clerc
SUNY Potsdam · 2017-18
0.625 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jack Johnson
Saint John's · 2018-19
0.957 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.