Turcotte's ELC inspired this post. Are most players better off developing in the AHL or staying in college? I'm talking about high draft picks in particular. Caufield, Zegras, etc...For every Jack Eichel, Quinn Hughes, and Clayton Keller there seems to be 10 Casey Mittelstadt's, Kieffer Bellows' and Oliver Wahlstrom's.

Why the rush to turn pro if they're not NHL-ready? Why not develop into a more dominant college player before becoming a mediocre minor leaguer? Adam Fox did it right. So did Chris Kreider.

Teams likely feel more pressure to get their top picks into their system quicker than say a 2nd round and later guy. They feel they have more control over a player's development when he's in their own organization.

For Mittelstadt, he put up pretty good numbers for a freshman, however I remember reading some scouting reports saying that he wasn't exactly a dominant player and could've used another season in the NCAA. Buffalo apparently felt he was ready for the NHL, as noted by his 77 game rookie season. In hindsight, he should've been put in the AHL much sooner (or at least kept in the NCAA), and now his ELC is about to expire with very little to show for it.

Bellows and Wahlstrom are a bit different, in that they both had very underwhelming freshman seasons in the NCAA following their higher draft placements. Because of that--and the fact that they both play for the Islanders--the Islanders front office felt like their development would be better suited for other leagues, Bellows for the WHL and Wahlstrom for the AHL. Of course, it's hard to say if their movement was a choice made by the front offices, by the player, or both parties in concert with one another.

Long story short, it's different for each player and each team.

The NCAA is better for player development but there is a double edge sword.
Players can go to college at 18, By the time they are 20 and old enough to enter the AHL, they have 2 years under their belt in the NCAA.
If they play 4 years, they are a Free Agent.
If you develop them in the NCAA instead of the AHL for the 3rd year, then it only takes them 1 more year to become a free agent. This happens frequently enough that teams don't like to do this with guys they really want on their team.

So they tend to sign players in their sophomore year. Those left to develop later than that, are probably because they really don't think players are ready yet or the player has decided not to sign at that time.

I'd say AHL, because it's the best developing ground in playing against adult professionals. NCAA and CHL have both the age limit of 21, therefore all of the players there are young. It's a level playing field in that sense for all the rookies and young guys, but the case is different in NHL with the players being all from 18 to 43 years old at the moment,

The NCAA doesn’t have a 21 yr old age limit.

I think this falls into the category of it depends on the player. If a player needs to mature and get stronger the NCAA is significantly better because the amount of time put into training and practice in season is significantly more. The draw back is the amount of games and difference in talent in competition.

If a player needs to play to develop, ie defensive game awareness, then the AHL is significantly better, because they play 70+ games and is arguably the 2nd best league in the world.

Huh. According to google there is a 21 yr age limit. Maybe my source is f*cked.

I think what that limit you saw was the freshman age limit where the oldest you can be as a freshman is 21. So in theory the actual age limit in the NCAA is 25.

But you get 5 years to complete 4 years of eligibility in NCAA sports (a redshirt year where you practice but don’t play in games, and is primarily used in football). A medical redshirt year is possible if an entire season is lost to injury in games.

Minnesota Duluth is the #1 ranked team in college hockey and their captain is 23.

Yeah that was it. Should've read more clearly.

exactly there is no age limit in the NCAA matter of fact, players in the NCAA tend to be older.
There isn't a question about it. The NCAA develops better players.
Not only is there more time for coaching, most programs have better facilities, and you are looking at players constantly having to adjust to things like different rink sizes etc... which make them more well rounded players.
On top of it, there are no old slow guys in the NCAA. It's a faster paced game where the focus is on hockey. There is limited goonery.
The NCAA is actually one of the largest producers of NHL players now. Their rate of player production keeps rising year after year.
32% of players on active NHL rosters played college hockey. Up from 20% in 2000.
It keeps rising, because the benefits provided are next level and can't be matched. Like most sports. It will eventually be the primary path to the NHL for anyone not capable of playing at 18.

Are you sure about the age limit. I thought that there was a 21 yr old freshman rule in place. Not that you couldn’t be 22 or 23 but you wouldn’t be classified as a freshman

all NCAA sports have to follow the same guild lines. There are no age barriers.
That would be considered discriminatory

So here it is; according to the NCAA (if you want to read it here it is http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Student_Resources/CBSA.pdf ) you have a grace period to enroll and compete. In ice hockey it is 21 to have the 5 years to complete 4 years of eligibility. So if you competed in amateur hockey after that grace period you would lose 1 yr of eligibility for each year you continued to compete. Skiing has the same ‘age limit’. So yes there is an age limit, kind of.

"According to the NCAA, there is no set age limit for any athletes."
keep arguing.
you just sound foolish.
There have been 40 year olds play college sports.
The rules are the same across the NCAA for all sports by charter.
It's not even worth me wasting my time with this nonsense.

I am fully aware of that there was a 50 some year old football player not that long ago and that Weinke wins a Heismann at 27.
But if you read the whole thing jackass you would have seen on page 29 regarding amateurism and enrollment that there is an age limit on incoming freshman, which is the damn point I made to other poster who said there was an age limit period.

Division 1 Hockey Eligibility I found online: There actually is an age limit of sorts in three NCAA Division I sports. Those are tennis (20), and men’s ice hockey and skiing (21 in both).

It’s not an “absolute” age limit, but an athlete’s remaining eligibility in those sports can be limited if they have participated in amateur competition after the age limit AND before they begin attending college as a full-time enrolled student.

In all other sports, age is not a deciding factor, but instead is based on the number of years or full-time semesters since starting college.

Also, athletes participating in a sport AFTER the completion of high school AND prior to attending college classes as a full-time student can lose seasons of eligibility if they do that beyond the permitted “grace period” or “gap year.” -Rick Allen, via quora.com

I believe you're correct. And Hockey has different rules than Football.