I think it will increase the quality of college hockey. It also will make it far more competitive to get a college hockey scholarship, as you've just seen the number of potential recruits increase exponentially. It will probably degrade the quality of junior hockey leagues based in the states (like USHL) as some players chose to play in those rather than north of the border to maintain eligibility for NCAA. I'm not sure how it will effect the NHL. We may end up with more older rookies if more elite players decide to take advantage of a free college education prior to going pro full-time.

Oh it's maybe going to have a big impact on the NHL. You get someone like Gavin McKenna, he might be the first test case of these new eligibility rules. He gets drafted somewhere like the Islanders or Buffalo or something like that, he's making $700k per year for NIL in the NCAA, he's not going to be racing to report to Buffalo to lock up for three years, even if it's a bit more money. Might choose to stay the course in the NCAA at Penn State and wait out his rights expiry and enter the NHL as a free agent for a team of his choosing. The NHL is going to have to address this somehow, because this scenario is going to happen one day.

Wouldn't it be a bad thing, development wise, for a top end prospect (like McKenna) to over-cook in an effectively junior league rather than pushing up into the pros a year or two earlier?

@Denjin @GrindingGears probably depends on whom you are concerned about. Arguably going to college and getting an education may be more valuable long term for a guy like McKenna.

@GrindingGears @Denjin granted, even if you spend just 2 years in the NHL you can probably afford to pay for a college education yourself if you can't play anymore. And that education would probably be better if you aren't working 40 hours a week training for college hockey simultaneously.

Well that and longer term it might be the better paying move. Floundering in Buffalo (sorry I'm picking on you Buffalo, you just make a good example) isn't good for the long term payoff. Even if you light it up, you won't get anywhere and that affects value. Look at that deal McDavid signed this morning, 2 years 12.5, first glance you are like ok great this is a we win in 2 years or I'm outtie deal. But it's 4d chess on his part, let's say they DO win, imagine what his AAV is going to look like as he goes to market in two years. If they don't, he's still getting a payoff. But he's (wisely) saying, you know what, here's some cap room to get something done, he's probably got a say in who they get, and he obviously feels they are close. Same principle applies, what's the longer term payoff, for McKenna if he faces going to a dunce team, it's probably staying in the NCAA.

Yeah, I just mean from a purely hockey skills point of view, most of the top rated guys coming out of NCAA right now don't stay down past their draft year. The only one I can think of right now is Quinn Hughes who stayed for an extra year past his draft year surprising many people who thought he was a lock to come up because he was slated to be a top player even straight away, which he was.