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

Todd Schauss Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin 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
2013-14 Hartford Jr. Wolfpack EHL 31 8 15 23 0.742 0.2611 0.2611 0.3638 0.3638
2014-15 Hartford Jr. Wolfpack EHL 43 19 28 47 1.093 0.3846 0.3846 0.5359 0.5359
■ 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
2018-19 Fredonia D1 — SR 27 8 3 11 0.407
2018-19 Fredonia D3 — SR 27 8 3 11 0.407
2017-18 Fredonia D3 — JR 19 4 7 11 0.579
2016-17 Fredonia D3 — SO 20 8 6 14 0.700
2015-16 Fredonia D3 — FR 23 6 5 11 0.478
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.29
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.48
2015-16 · Fredonia
+66.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#12830
Forward overall
#185
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Jason Salvaggio
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.41 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tony Calderone
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.69 PPG
→ Michigan (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.43 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Osterberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.77 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Thomas Ebbing
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Michigan (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
C.J. Smith
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.98 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.90 D1 FR PPG)
0.42 Elite
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Dakota Dubetz
Marian · 2006-07
1.333 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Jonathan Grebosky
Concordia · 2011-12
0.769 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Luke Aquaro
Hobart · 2018-19
1.231 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.