← New Search ↗ Social Card

Michael Gurska Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1998-02-05 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
2016-17 Connecticut Jr. Rangers USPHL-Premier-Classic 41 1 10 11 0.268 0.0753 0.0786 0.2210 0.2307
2017-18 Connecticut Jr. Rangers NCDC 48 5 13 18 0.375 0.0867 0.0850 0.3032 0.2973
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
2021-22 Wilkes D3 MAC SR 26 5 13 18 0.692
2020-21 Wilkes D1 JR 11 0 9 9 0.818
2020-21 Wilkes D3 MAC JR 11 0 9 9 0.818
2019-20 Wilkes D1 SO 29 2 33 35 1.207
2019-20 Wilkes D3 MAC SO 29 2 33 35 1.207
2018-19 Wilkes D1 FR 26 5 10 15 0.577
2018-19 Wilkes D3 MAC FR 26 5 10 15 0.577
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.58
2018-19 · Wilkes
+641.5% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

20%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
57%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#10213
Defenseman overall
#1823
Defenseman born in 1998

D1 Comparables

OHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Southern Maine (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.06 Average D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ Brown
0.08 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

SUNY Plattsburgh · 2011-12
0.350 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Trine · 2016-17
0.300 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
New England College · 2021-22
0.462 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.