The difference with the 90's bulls example is that:I think the idea that lack of parity hurts ratings is overstated, if not outright untrue. The EPL is experiencing unprecedented success despite the fact Man City has won 4 if the last 5 titles and only 5 teams have finished in the top 3 in that same span. In the US dynasties led by superstars have proven to draw attention and eyeballs (Bulls in the 90s, Patriots more recently).
I think college football's problem hasn't necessarily been the same teams over and over. It's been the same teams AND uncompetitive blowouts. The playoff product has been bad. It's more a question of disparity between the top 1% and the next 10% than the disparity between the top 1% and the remaining 99%.
I think NIL may already be helping that issue, but if you expect it to level the playing field in a more expansive way you'll probably be disappointed.
First, in the early nineties the Lakers, Bulls, and Knicks were all good so the 3 major markets were all heavily invested.
Second, mid-market teams like the Pistons, Pacers, and Jazz could be really good to the point it wasn't irrational to think they could win.
Third, bottom feeders had hope through the draft.
College football is massive, but if there was more parity, there would be a lot less uncompetitive games, more teams/fanbases invested, and this could actually grow the game even more as crazy as that sounds.