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

Cory Conacher Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-12-14 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
2006-07 Burlington Cougars OJHL 48 22 40 62 1.292 0.3880 0.4205 0.8842 0.9583
■ 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
2010-11 Canisius D1 AHA SR 37 23 19 42 1.135
2009-10 Canisius D1 AHA JR 35 20 33 53 1.514
2008-09 Canisius D1 AHA SO 37 12 23 35 0.946
2007-08 Canisius D1 AHA FR 20 7 10 17 0.850
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.36
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.85
2007-08 · Canisius
+136.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#9387
Forward overall
#347
Forward born in 1989
#188
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Patrick Newell
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.75 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.59 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Austin Poganski
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Karson Kuhlman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.56 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Average
NCAAe PPG
Nick Schmaltz
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.81 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.54 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Connor Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.48 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Austin Dollimer
Augsburg · 2014-15
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Tom Bark
Lake Forest · 2006-07
1.120 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Connor Treacy
SUNY Potsdam · 2002-03
0.960 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.