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

Camden Smith Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2002-07-01 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
2021-22 Neepawa Titans MJHL 54 9 11 20 0.370 0.0713 0.0702 0.2334 0.2299
2022-23 Neepawa Titans MJHL 57 2 21 23 0.404 0.0777 0.0729 0.2543 0.2386
■ 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
2025-26 Chatham D3 UCHC GR 25 0 6 6 0.240
2024-25 Chatham D3 UCHC SR 26 1 3 4 0.154
2023-24 Chatham D3 UCHC JR 14 0 4 4 0.286
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.07
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.29
2023-24 · Chatham
+321.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

18%
NCAA D1
22%
NCAA D2/D3
55%
Age-Out / Club
5%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#16072
Defenseman overall
#2881
Defenseman born in 2002
#1204
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 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
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Noah Roitman
Concordia · 2021-22
0.296 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Chad Watt
Stevenson · 2017-18
0.217 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Matthew Donnelly
Concordia · 2016-17
0.000 No data
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.