— · — players
🔍
No players match your filters.
No players match your filters.
This tool projects what NCAA role a player is most likely to fill — sorted into two views by the Player Pool toggle at the top:
🎓 Junior / Incoming — every current junior and incoming player (USHL, NTDP, CHL, NAHL, BCHL, other Junior-A), projected to the NCAA D1 role their junior production points to. This is your recruiting board: who to bring in.
📈 Current NCAA — players already on NCAA rosters, projected to their most likely role next season. This is your development & portal view: how your roster and potential transfers are trending.
Every projection is a probability across role tiers, not a single guess — a starting point for the conversation, not the final word. Players who have already turned pro (NHL/AHL/etc.) are excluded from both views.
Takes a junior's scoring and stacks it against thousands of players who made the same jump to the NCAA, then shows the role they most often grew into. Use it to build a shortlist of who's worth recruiting.
Looks at how a player has scored in the NCAA so far, plus their age, to project the role they're trending toward next season — with a plain confidence tag telling you how much to trust each read.
NCAA-scoring role buckets. Forwards split into four lines by points-per-game; defensemen into three pairs. Same tiers across both views.
In the Current NCAA view, each projection carries a confidence tag based on how wide its range of likely outcomes is — a tight range reads High, a wide one reads Low. It's judged within position (forwards naturally swing wider than defense, so the tags are fair to each spot).
Read the probability bar and the confidence tag together: a "1st Line" projection at High confidence is a much safer bet than the same label at Low.
Hover a projection to see the player's arc: the line is the season-by-season scoring the model expects across his college years, the shaded area is the range it considers likely, and the dashed blue line is what he's scoring right now (his current year is marked •). Three patterns worth knowing:
1. The line sits below what he's already scoring. Happens after a hot season — say a player at 1.25 points per game whose curve tops out at 1.10. The model weighs his whole track record (junior years + every NCAA season), and one big year above a modest history reads as part real, part hot streak. The line is the level he can sustain, not a cap — and if his current pace sits inside the shaded area, the model itself says this season is within the plausible range. If he keeps producing, the curve comes up to meet him at the next update.
2. The line rises through his remaining years. His best hockey is projected ahead of him — typical for players still filling out or who arrived raw. The outlined dot is his projected peak year; a sophomore peaking as a senior is a player worth being patient with.
3. Narrow shading vs wide shading. Narrow = deep track record, lean on the line (these read High confidence). Wide = short résumé, honest uncertainty — a high line inside a wide band is upside with risk, not a promise. Don't compare two players' lines without comparing their shading.
These numbers come from a backtest — we checked the model against what players actually went on to do, scoring it only on players it had never seen. Honest accuracy, not guesswork.
The report card (Current NCAA view). Each row is a player's real outcome; the shaded cell shows where the model projected them. Green squares down the diagonal are exact hits — and because the color hugs the diagonal, the misses land in the next line or pairing, almost never far off.
| actual ↓ / projected → | 4th Line | 3rd Line | 2nd Line | 1st Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Line | 0 0% | 19 3% | 205 31% | 437 66% |
| 2nd Line | 0 0% | 108 21% | 268 52% | 136 27% |
| 3rd Line | 10 2% | 236 49% | 195 41% | 38 8% |
| 4th Line | 28 6% | 304 67% | 110 24% | 10 2% |
| actual ↓ / projected → | 3rd Pair | 2nd Pair | 1st Pair |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Pair | 14 3% | 135 31% | 288 66% |
| 2nd Pair | 71 20% | 201 56% | 88 24% |
| 3rd Pair | 140 37% | 205 54% | 38 10% |
Read a row across: of players who really became 1st-line forwards, 66% were projected 1st line and 31% 2nd — 97% within one line. It's a backtest — the model never saw these players — so it isn't grading its own homework.
What that means for you: the Current-NCAA view is strong enough to lean on, especially when you filter to High confidence. The Recruiting view is a ranked shortlist — great for separating top-line upside from depth, but don't treat the exact tier as gospel. And the ranges are trustworthy — a wide range genuinely means "less certain," not the tool hedging.
Limits: skaters only — goalies are not projected. Defensemen are ranked on scoring only — ice time isn't available (NCAA doesn't publish skater time-on-ice), so a low-scoring, heavy-minutes shutdown D can rank lower than their usage deserves. Players with no trackable junior league (some European / prep imports) may be missing from the NCAA view. The model sees production, age, and league — not skating, compete, hockey sense, injuries, or character. It's one input for your staff, not a verdict.
Recruiting from junior or the incoming class? Use Junior / Incoming. Evaluating your roster or a transfer target? Switch to Current NCAA.
Each view opens sorted by projected NCAA upside — Peak Proj PPG in Current NCAA, NHLe in Junior. The top of the list is your highest-value pool — then use the filters to narrow to a league, team, or role.
In the NCAA view, filter to "High Only" when you need a projection you can trust; open it up when scouting for upside you can tolerate risk on.
Check rows to build a shortlist (up to 5), then Compare — ceiling vs. certainty side by side. Export any list to Excel for your staff.
Players who've signed pro (NHL, AHL, Europe) are removed from both views, so the boards stay to players you can actually recruit or develop.
The model doesn't know skating, compete, injuries, character, or fit. It's a data-informed starting point — your staff always has the final word.