This is an interesting discussion. Poking around online a little bit after reading the OP, a few things jumped out to me that could help inform this discussion.
It seems like some of the maximum money for hockey players earning NIL currently is around $100K or so a season. A player like McKenna could conceivably top that quite easily, but even doing so doesn't bring him close to ELC money.
Under an ELC, with maximum signing, Type A, and Type B bonuses, a player could conceivably earn up to nearly $4.5M a season. Practically, that would mean a near impossible run of absolute league and team dominance. Realistically, anyone earning $2M per season while signed to an ELC is doing exceptionally well.
McKenna is a late birthday, still 17 until December 20 this year. If he goes NCAA, doesn't sign with his draft team, and bides his four years in order to handpick his team, he'll still be 21 on Sept 15 of the first year of any NHL contract. Meaning he would still be subject to a 3 year ELC. So, assuming all goes well and he's the player people expect he will be, he would be cashing in for a big contract in his Draft +8 year.
If he simply goes the traditional NHL route and makes the league as a 17 or 18 year old, by the time he's in his Draft +8 year he could be only 1 or 2 years into a monstrous 8 year extension.
I think NIL is a great thing for all college athletes. It may continue to grow to the point where it is a legitimate consideration between signing a pro contract or not. But it's nowhere near there yet, I don't think. Not when you're a tip-top prospect comparing earnings of possibly $6M-$8M in your 7 years after being drafted and sticking with the NCAA/choose your pro team route, vs. what could amount to something like potentially $25M-$40M in those same 7 years by going pro right away.
Interesting discussion though, for sure.
|