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

Matthew McCormack Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2004-03-31 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 — EHL 25 2 1 3 0.120 0.0422 0.0425 0.0588 0.0592
2024-25 Connecticut RoughRiders EHL 38 16 10 26 0.684 0.2408 0.2301 — —
■ 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 Manhattanville D3 UCHC FR 8 2 1 3 0.375
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.38
2025-26 · Manhattanville
+182.6% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

18%
NCAA D2/D3
5%
Club / ACHA
0%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#35071
Forward overall
#2142
Forward born in 2004

D1 Comparables

Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Nelson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Davey Middleton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tommy Hughes
Assumption · 2011-12
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Dean Simeone
Assumption · 2021-22
0.154 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Ben Plocar
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2006-07
0.111 Developing
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.