← New Search ↗ Social Card

Jordan Reed Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1990-01-13 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
2006-07 Ajax Attack OJHL 1 0 0 0 0.000
2007-08 Ajax Attack OJHL 4 0 1 1 0.250 0.0698 0.0728 0.1725 0.1799
2008-09 Ajax Attack OJHL 44 13 17 30 0.682 0.1905 0.1889 0.4705 0.4664
2009-10 Ajax Attack OJHL 49 38 53 91 1.857 0.5189 0.4872 1.2816 1.2033
2010-11 OJHL 46 18 39 57 1.239 0.3462 0.3089 0.8551 0.7630
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
2014-15 Curry D3 CNE SR 25 22 12 34 1.360
2013-14 Curry D3 CNE JR 20 7 1 8 0.400
2012-13 Curry D3 CNE SO 24 8 13 21 0.875
2011-12 Curry D3 CNE FR 26 8 15 23 0.885
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.33
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.88
2011-12 · Curry
+171.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6775
Forward overall
#285
Forward born in 1990
#173
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.02 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.86 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Average
NCAAe PPG
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.71 PPG
→ Penn State (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Average
NCAAe PPG
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Manhattanville · 2018-19
0.565 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Aurora · 2018-19
1.259 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Manhattanville · 2005-06
0.840 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.