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

Tyler Lepore Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-05-24 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
2011-12 Burlington Cougars OJHL 9 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2012-13 Burlington Cougars OJHL 47 6 15 21 0.447 0.1095 0.1113 0.3076 0.3126
2013-14 Burlington Cougars OJHL 50 15 30 45 0.900 0.2206 0.2129 0.6197 0.5981
■ 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 SUNY Morrisville D3 SUNYAC — 23 6 3 9 0.391
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.39
2015-16 · SUNY Morrisville
+165.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#26337
Forward overall
#1022
Forward born in 1994
#1248
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Tanner Pond
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alfred Larsson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Schutt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Greg Pezza
Connecticut College · 2015-16
0.300 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Matthew Gough
Adrian · 2021-22
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Alex Johanson
Trine · 2015-16
0.364 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.