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

Brian Crink Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-02-24 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
2015-16 Evansville Jr. Thunderbolts NA3HL 47 4 11 15 0.319 0.0400 0.0367 0.1007 0.0924
■ 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
2016-17 Daniel Webster D3 — FR 16 0 1 1 0.062
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.03
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.06
2016-17 · Daniel Webster
+80.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#21633
Defenseman overall
#2348
Defenseman born in 1995
#3609
in NA3HL

D1 Comparables

Carter Foguth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.04 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Michael Holland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Connor McKenzie
Worcester State · 2015-16
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Austin Nelson
Wisconsin-Stout · 2013-14
0.231 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jaeseok Lee
New England College · 2024-25
0.273 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.