Maybe Im just naive or an optimist, but I don't really see the introduction of essentially player salaries to NCAA as likely to have a huge impact on hockey. It's somewhat niche and not really a revenue sport as it is, so accordingly it's players probably couldn't demand much, if any, salary. It may further the power imbalance of haves and have nots, since schools like those in the B1G might be the ones able to offer salaries while others can't, but that was a) already endemic to the NCAA model, and b) was likely to be further cemented by penalty free transfers and NIL money anyway. So I don't necessarily see it as being a death blow to the sport?
Now, the pessimist in me says that maybe men's hockey is the exact sport, or in the range of the exact sport, that stands to get decimated by this ruling. I mean this in the sense that (P5) men's basketball and football were already huge revenue generators, so they can afford to siphon some off the top to the players doing the majority of the generation of that massive income. On the other end of the spectrum, more obscure men's sports like rifle, bowling, etc, and almost all women's sports will probably be in the position of their players not having any expectation of income anyway, so they won't be effected much or at all by the ruling. Leaving the more middle tier sports, like men's hockey specifically, as it has the NHL, a major professional league with high salaries and media coverage (relatively speaking) as the end goal of its players, they may have more expectation of earnings that schools with a hockey program will not, or cannot, provide.
Or maybe I, along with anyone else, won't know for sure how it will play out and we will just have to be along for the ride and wait and see.