I'm with the side of the argument that this will mostly benefits the larger state schools with the largest alumni/local fan/customer base.
The walmart college sports sales is all I could find but is a good proxy imo. The top 10 college football programs in terms of merchandise sales are the expected names: Alabama is #1, followed by OSU, SEC schools, etc.
https://www.al.com/news/2017/10/college_footballs_top_10accord.html I don't see any good reasons why the distribution of future image licensing fees should deviate substantially from current merchandise sales. Big schools generate the most merchandise sales, which will result in the most licensing fees payable to players.
Even moreso when NIL fees become directly and explicitly weaponized for recruiting, and Lincoln Riley makes a plea for each and every loyal OU fan to go out a buy a t-shirt with Spencer Rattler's likeness on it. When (not if) that happens the hundreds of thousands of OU fans will be motivated to buy Spencer rattler t-shirts not because they actually want one, but because it'll be their way of helping their favorite college football team get the best players.
That said, we still enjoy a national brand and mystique in the world of college football and this should help a lot. We should be able to therefore outperform our size and alumni base. I don't think we'll be able to equal the licensing fees that Alabama, OSU, UGA, etc will be able to generate for players, but maybe we can come close enough.
As others have noted, it's not clear we have to match the big schools so long as kids know that if they come to UM they'll be able to achieve NIL fees that can keep them and their families comfortable while they're working their way through college ball.
Side note: the largest collegiate athletics trademark licensing and marketing company is the Collegiate Licensing Company based in Slema, AL. CLC was founded by Bill Battle who is a former University of Alabama football player and athletic director. Let the shenanigans begin!!