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

Brandon Rose Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1982-08-27 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
2000-01 Parry Sound Shamrocks OJHL 47 31 33 64 1.362 0.3805 0.3783 0.9397 0.9343
2001-02 Aurora Tigers OJHL 49 18 37 55 1.122 0.3136 0.2956 0.7746 0.7301
■ 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
2005-06 Elmira D3 — SR 29 5 18 23 0.793
2004-05 Elmira D3 — JR 19 1 7 8 0.421
2003-04 Elmira D3 — SO 24 8 16 24 1.000
2002-03 Elmira D3 — FR 28 5 13 18 0.643
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.28
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.64
2002-03 · Elmira
+128.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7934
Forward overall
#322
Forward born in 1982
#245
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

C.J. Reuschlein
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Army (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Max McHugh
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.88 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Jake Wood
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ RPI (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Sieckhaus
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.74 PPG
→ Bentley (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Andrew Mayer
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.94 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

David Ripple
SUNY Geneseo · 2010-11
0.957 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Kenny Matheson
Hamilton · 2010-11
0.889 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Chris Santiago
Utica · 2008-09
0.769 Strong
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.