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

Jordan Menke Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-12-17 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
2007-08 Yorkton Terriers SJHL 25 3 5 8 0.320 0.0820 0.0873 0.2412 0.2568
2008-09 Yorkton Terriers SJHL 56 15 23 38 0.679 0.1739 0.1764 0.5115 0.5190
2009-10 Yorkton Terriers SJHL 58 20 24 44 0.759 0.1944 0.1883 0.5718 0.5539
■ 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
2010-11 Wisconsin-Superior D3 WIAC FR 14 0 4 4 0.286
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.29
2010-11 · Wisconsin-Superior
+81.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#29489
Forward overall
#974
Forward born in 1989
#559
in SJHL

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
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 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

D2/3 Comparables

Patrick Gazich
Gustavus Adolphus · 2016-17
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Kyle Wagner
Saint John's · 2015-16
0.480 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Laidlaw
Utica · 2004-05
0.762 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.