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

Austin Ziakas Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-10-11 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
2012-13 Peoria Mustangs NA3HL 42 2 7 9 0.214 0.0258 0.0267 0.0677 0.0701
2013-14 Peoria Mustangs NA3HL 47 7 26 33 0.702 0.0846 0.0843 0.2218 0.2211
2014-15 Peoria Mustangs NA3HL 19 1 14 15 0.789 0.0951 0.0902 0.2494 0.2364
■ 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
2020-21 Saint Mary's D3 — JR 2 0 0 0 0.000
2019-20 Saint Mary's D3 — SO 7 0 0 0 0.000
2018-19 Saint Mary's D3 — FR 14 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#16032
Defenseman overall
#1880
Defenseman born in 1994
#1891
in NA3HL

D1 Comparables

Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Flynn
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UConn (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.19 No data
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Zink
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Garret Peterson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.35 PPG
→ Army (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Noel Rahn
Saint John's · 2022-23
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Tristan Fasig
Hobart · 2021-22
0.407 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Stevie Bryant
UMass Boston · 2017-18
0.360 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.