← New Search ↗ Social Card

Jack Emmer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1991-09-13 Country: USA
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
2010-11 Neepawa Titans MJHL 7 0 2 2 0.286 0.0550 0.0550 0.1802 0.1804
2011-12 Neepawa Titans MJHL 5 0 0 0 0.000
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
2012-13 Bethel D3 MIAC 10 0 1 1 0.100
2011-12 Bethel D3 MIAC 5 1 0 1 0.200
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.05
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.20
2011-12 · Bethel
+285.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Michigan Tech
0.05 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.07 PPG
→ Army (0.16 D1 FR PPG)
0.04 Average D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ UConn (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Princeton (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Saint Anselm · 2021-22
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Aurora · 2014-15
0.632 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Worcester State · 2014-15
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.