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

Josh Jacobs Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1985-09-07 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
2002-03 Thornhill Rattlers OJHL 47 9 21 30 0.638 0.1564 0.1647 0.4395 0.4627
2003-04 Markham Waxers OJHL 45 15 27 42 0.933 0.2288 0.2306 0.6426 0.6476
2004-05 Markham Waxers OJHL 48 14 23 37 0.771 0.1889 0.1808 0.5307 0.5080
■ 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
2006-07 Neumann D3 MAC SO 8 0 3 3 0.375
2005-06 Neumann D3 MAC FR 12 1 5 6 0.500
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.50
2005-06 · Neumann
+191.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#23024
Forward overall
#723
Forward born in 1985
#1000
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average
NCAAe PPG
Landon Smith
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.79 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Jake Wood
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ RPI (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
C.J. Reuschlein
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Army (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Josh Erickson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Adam Laite
University of New England · 2007-08
0.818 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Colin Anna
SUNY Cortland · 2021-22
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Scott Pulak
St. Norbert · 2006-07
0.548 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.