Yeah, I don't get how this is a "problem" (except I suppose a societal one) for the NCAA. If anything, this is exactly the true purpose of NIL - if a person who happens to be playing college sports can make money by selling their image or likeness, they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so just because they are involved in an NCAA sport. Hot college women are able to make money on social media. There's no reason why an NCAA basketball (or volleyball, gymnastics, etc) player shouldn't be able to make money that way when some random sociology major who does not play a sport can do so.
There's no particular reason why NIL money should be tied to how good you are at a sport or even if if your sport otherwise makes money. Sure, excelling at a sport might make you more marketable and thus able to bring in more revenue but that isn't the only thing involved in NIL (or at least it shouldn't be).
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the NCAA though. In theory, NIL is outside their control and the point of the court ruling is that the NCAA shouldn't have any authority to restrict an athletes ability to market their likeness. Getting involved in trying to regulate that NIL money is for the "right" reasons is both absurd and a dangerous path for the NCAA. If they want to get involved, it should be to ensure that NIL money isn't being used as simply "pay to play" (i.e. replacing under the table brides to get players to commit or stay at a particular school) and is actually payments for using the name/images/likeness of the player for marketing value of the paying entity.
