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

Jeremiah Snyder Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2003-09-30 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
2021-22 Texas Jr. Brahmas NA3HL 44 14 15 29 0.659 0.0729 0.0763 0.2088 0.2186
2022-23 Seacoast Spartans EHL 11 1 9 10 0.909 0.1330 0.1373 0.4457 0.4601
2023-24 Seacoast Spartans EHL 45 5 3 8 0.178 0.0260 0.0255 0.0872 0.0856
■ 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 Fitchburg State D3 MASCAC — 7 0 2 2 0.286
2024-25 Fitchburg State D3 MASCAC — 3 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

8%
NCAA D2/D3
5%
Club / ACHA
0%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#9265
Defenseman overall
#2072
Defenseman born in 2003

D1 Comparables

Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Evan Wilson
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2011-12
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Joe Adams
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2003-04
0.111 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Blaine Gamst
Concordia · 2005-06
0.520 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.