There’s a policy process term for this: policy bubble, when suppressed change in a policy area finally occurs and over-corrects so that the solution to a problem becomes a problem itself.
It’s part of a larger policy process theory called punctuated equilibrium theory, which is a way of explaining why most governance systems change very slowly with occasional periods of large, explosive changes (i.e., why you don’t often see moderate, reasonable change in government). PET looks at agenda-setting and information processing to show how the desires and values of the general population get distorted in the policy-making process.
In the case of CFB, the NCAA was a policy monopoly. They had complete control over the rules of collegiate athletics. Anybody that wanted to create change had to do it through their system. They used that power to dampen such efforts. Grievances with the system slowly accumulated as the difference between the NCAA’s rules and the wants of players/fans/coaches/etc grew. Eventually people found an alternative way to create change: the courts. The introduction of a new policy venue opened up all of collegiate athletics’ institutional rules to change and attracted tons of new policy actors: TV networks, collectives, agents, private equity, etc. They all have their own agendas that may or may not align with what the original stakeholders wanted. The processes of negative feedback that used to suppress change were replaced by positive feedback that encourage it. We’ve completely flown past the moderate change that was originally desired and find ourselves in a policy bubble.