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

Michael Roby Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2003-05-18 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
2022-23 New Hampshire Jr. Monarchs NCDC 47 9 9 18 0.383 0.1561 0.1561 0.3079 0.3078
■ 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
2025-26 Chatham D3 UCHC SR 27 23 16 39 1.444
2024-25 Chatham D3 UCHC JR 26 10 6 16 0.615
2023-24 Chatham D3 UCHC SO 19 4 3 7 0.368
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.37
2023-24 · Chatham
+175.7% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

22%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
12%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#23460
Forward overall
#1276
Forward born in 2003
#818
in NCDC

D1 Comparables

Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Schutt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tanner Pond
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Andrew Mather
SUNY Oswego · 2006-07
0.308 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Cameron Cordio
Lebanon Valley · 2015-16
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Sprouse
Concordia · 2012-13
0.000 No data
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.