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

Kenny Tencza Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-05-03 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 Philadelphia Revolution EHL 36 20 28 48 1.333 0.3080 0.3206 0.6524 0.6791
2014-15 Buffalo Jr. Sabres OJHL 16 4 9 13 0.812 0.1991 0.1913 0.5594 0.5374
■ 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
2017-18 UMass Dartmouth D3 HockeyEast — 26 7 4 11 0.423
2016-17 Elmira D3 UCHC — 14 3 8 11 0.786
2015-16 Elmira D3 UCHC — 18 4 6 10 0.556
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.21
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.56
2015-16 · Elmira
+167.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#12393
Forward overall
#504
Forward born in 1995

D1 Comparables

Tommy Schutt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tanner Pond
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Gage Hough
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
William Messa
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Northeastern
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mike Moher
Amherst · 2004-05
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Braeden Kennedy
Framingham State · 2021-22
0.400 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brodie Tutton
SUNY Geneseo · 2013-14
0.500 Average
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.