Depends. If you figure $30k/year additional expense in stipends across ~200 scholarship athletes, that's $6M/year. A poverty program like ISU reported $110M in income in 2023. Then consider some NIL funding now are donations that likely would've otherwise still happened but went to the AD. You're probably talking about in that case an athletic department figuring out how to manage a new expense of about 5% of revenue. Less if you consider that instead of having a collective out their marketing for new donations, similar resources and efforts would be done by the AD to stay competitive and pay the student athletes.
Since most athletes are probably getting very little in NIL, that would be a win for them.
ISU would be a lot better off in a controlled environment like this instead of trying to compete in a world where schools can drop $4-5M on a QB and OL. Long-term, competitiveness and success drive revenue and donations. So I think it would be tough, but long-term it seems like it would've been worth it for ISU and the non-blueblood programs to try to push some reforms like this through.