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

Matthew Cousino Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1997-12-23 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
2017-18 — NCDC 50 7 11 18 0.360 0.1468 0.1430 0.2894 0.2820
■ 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
2019-20 Elmira D1 UCHC SO 24 1 12 13 0.542
2019-20 Elmira D3 UCHC — 24 1 12 13 0.542
2018-19 Elmira D1 UCHC FR 23 4 10 14 0.609
2018-19 Elmira D3 UCHC — 23 4 10 14 0.609
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.61
2018-19 · Elmira
+350.9% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

15%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
28%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#5801
Defenseman overall
#1150
Defenseman born in 1997
#915
in NCDC

D1 Comparables

Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.15 No data
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Fiala
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jarrett Slear
Plymouth State · 2017-18
0.222 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Mike Macdonald
Lebanon Valley · 2000-01
0.455 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Paul Stehr
St. Olaf · 2015-16
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.