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

Patrick Sweeney Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2004-09-02 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
2023-24 Boston Jr. Rangers EHL 8 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2024-25 Boston Jr. Rangers NCDC 39 2 11 13 0.333 0.0770 0.0742 0.2695 0.2596
■ 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 Roger Williams D3 CNE — 19 3 7 10 0.526
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.53
2025-26 · Roger Williams
+728.8% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

25%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
0%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#20328
Forward overall
#1092
Forward born in 2004

D1 Comparables

Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Frédérick Allaire
Hamilton · 2018-19
0.385 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jake Bushey
Gustavus Adolphus · 2013-14
0.609 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Matthew Stanton
Wisconsin-Eau Claire · 2018-19
0.350 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.