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

Brandon Goudreau Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-12-05 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
2014-15 Tampa Bay Juniors USPHL-Elite 32 12 32 44 1.375 0.1269 0.1349 0.3149 0.3348
2015-16 P.A.L. Junior Islanders USPHL-Elite 40 15 18 33 0.825 0.0761 0.0774 0.1889 0.1920
■ 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 Southern New Hampshire D2 NE10 — 9 2 2 4 0.444
2016-17 Southern New Hampshire D2 NE10 — 9 3 0 3 0.333
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.09
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.33
2016-17 · Southern New Hampshire
+288.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#30752
Forward overall
#1291
Forward born in 1996
#130
in USPHL-Elite

D1 Comparables

Sebastian Weberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Colgate
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
Canon Pieper
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Hynes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Union (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tim Lappin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Brown (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average
NCAAe PPG
Austin Vieth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Matt Whitehead
SUNY Oswego · 2003-04
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Dionne Demke
Neumann · 2016-17
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Trent Shanley
Fitchburg State · 2017-18
0.250 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.