One other reason I am against the "Olympic" model is because the players likeness is directly tied to the school they chose. With the Olympics the vast majority of athletes can not pick and chose what country they play for. Yes, there are some duel citizens, but by and large most people are only eligible to participate for one country. They are not choosing which country to represent based on how it will effect the NIL rights. However, with college athletics players do have the ability to chose which "country" to play for, and their NIL is directly linked to where they decide to attend. The current level playing field of (scholarship, food, coaching, etc) will forever be un-level ("our school can increase your NIL because we have xxx number of alumni and yyy number of rich alumni who will market you")
I do think sports leagues have to be treated a bit differently, just because their mere survival depends on it. Without the draft, rights of players being granted to specific teams, and a salary cap the NFL would not work. Are any of those things normal or "fair" in the typical job market? No, and I know they are collectively bargained for, but both sides understand for the league to succeed certain rules need to be in place.
There is absolutely no way in hell a pay for play system where players can choose to play wherever they want, and in effect go to the highest bidder, can ever work in competitive team sports unless some kind of cap on spending was instituted. And there is no way a cap could be regulated in college sports, especially if entities outside the realm of the university are going to get involved in the funding.
Think Green Bay Packers or Buffalo Bills trying to compete with the Dallas Cowboys with no draft and no salary cap.