← New Search ↗ Social Card

Shane Beaulieu Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1997-03-06 Country: Canada
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 Aurora Tigers OJHL 38 4 6 10 0.263 0.0791 0.0833 0.1802 0.1897
2015-16 Mississauga Chargers OJHL 29 0 7 7 0.241 0.0725 0.0723 0.1652 0.1648
2016-17 Mississauga Chargers OJHL 37 7 15 22 0.595 0.1786 0.1701 0.4070 0.3877
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 SUNY Cortland D3 SUNYAC SR 24 3 2 5 0.208
2019-20 Cortland D1 SO 21 2 4 6 0.286
2019-20 SUNY Cortland D3 SO 21 2 4 6 0.286
2018-19 Cortland D1 FR 24 4 5 9 0.375
2018-19 SUNY Cortland D3 FR 24 4 5 9 0.375
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.38
2018-19 · Cortland
+234.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#35327
Forward overall
#1677
Forward born in 1997
#2518
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Notre Dame
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

SUNY Brockport · 2003-04
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Canton · 2013-14
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Amherst · 2007-08
0.636 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.