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

Ryan Scherer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-05-05 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
2012-13 Kirkland Lake Gold Miners NOJHL 35 1 10 11 0.314 0.0448 0.0437 0.1309 0.1277
2013-14 Kirkland Lake Gold Miners NOJHL 49 3 15 18 0.367 0.0523 0.0485 0.1529 0.1419
■ 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
2015-16 Wisconsin-Stevens Point D3 BigTen SO 10 1 1 2 0.200
2014-15 Wisconsin-Stevens Point D3 BigTen FR 4 0 1 1 0.250
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.04
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.25
2014-15 · Wisconsin-Stevens Point
+526.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#50775
Forward overall
#1917
Forward born in 1993
#1222
in NOJHL

D1 Comparables

Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
Stanislav Dzakhov
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Average
NCAAe PPG
Ben Ostlie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Notre Dame
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Joel Knight
Manhattanville · 2015-16
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Rylan Jockims
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2023-24
0.263 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Cummings
Saint Mary's (MN) · 2015-16
0.300 Developing
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.