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

Matt Silcoff Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-08-07 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
2010-11 Toronto Patriots OJHL 49 15 29 44 0.898 0.2201 0.2356 0.6183 0.6619
2011-12 — OJHL 49 24 27 51 1.041 0.2551 0.2618 0.7166 0.7355
■ 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 Middlebury D3 NESCAC JR 3 0 0 0 0.000
2013-14 Middlebury D3 NESCAC SO 24 4 4 8 0.333
2012-13 Middlebury D3 NESCAC FR 25 11 13 24 0.960
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.96
2012-13 · Middlebury
+346.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#16626
Forward overall
#581
Forward born in 1993
#565
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Zach Aston-Reese
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.54 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Osterberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.77 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Jarrid Privitera
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Vermont (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Nate Arentz
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Max Shuart
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Michigan
0.25 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mike Connolly
Buffalo State · 2007-08
0.412 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Dante Spagnuolo
Adrian · 2016-17
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Jackson Krill
Williams · 2022-23
1.000 Elite
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.