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

Michael Rubino Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1990-07-24 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 St. Michael's Buzzers OJHL 40 3 8 11 0.275 0.0674 0.0720 0.1893 0.2024
2008-09 St. Michael's Buzzers OJHL 53 7 21 28 0.528 0.1295 0.1318 0.3637 0.3701
■ 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 Lake Forest D3 NCHA SO 2 0 1 1 0.500
2009-10 Lake Forest D3 NCHA FR 25 3 13 16 0.640
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.64
2009-10 · Lake Forest
+528.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13322
Defenseman overall
#1479
Defenseman born in 1990
#2688
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Cutler Martin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Michigan (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Bischoff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Doyle Somerby
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Boston University (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Jimmy Mazza
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Canisius (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Zach Yoder
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.10 PPG
→ Air Force (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.06 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Elliott Clemmons
Endicott · 2016-17
0.292 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Adam Place
SUNY Potsdam · 2007-08
0.412 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Caleb Dusek
Neumann · 2018-19
0.000 No data
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.