This article caught my eye: "Rose Bowl more like Supreme Court Bowl with Georgia-Oklahoma matchup."
By way of background, the NCAA did not permit any of the schools to negotiate outside of the NCAA's agreement with ABC and CBS agreed to in 1981. Under the NCAA's structure (explained more at the bottom*), only one game was guaranteed to be shown each week on ABC and CBS and 82 different teams had to be shown every two years.
The University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia helped form the College Football Association (CFA), a group within the NCAA to represent and promote the interests of the major football schools including, one would presume, the University of Michigan.
Edit: My presumption is wrong. "The College Football Association (CFA) sold rights to broadcast live games of its  members from 1984 through 1995. It competed directly with the Big Ten and Pac Ten universities that sold an alternative broadcast package."
These schools, along with the other schools in the CFA, negotiated a separate contract with NBC that would allow for more televised games and greater revenues for the schools in question. The NCAA announced that it would take disciplinary action against any school that complied with the CFA plan.
The Supreme Court eventually heard the case and held that the NCAA plan for televised football games imposed a restraint on the free market and thus violated the Sherman Act (the federal antitrust law).
“The Board of Regents decision fundamentally shaped the future of college athletics, and college football in particular, because it created a future denominated by the chase for TV sets,” Dunnavant explained. . . . “You can draw a line from the Board of Regents decision to the expansion of the SEC to the death of the Southwest Conference to the birth of the Big 12 to the emergence of the Atlantic Coast Conference. Also, without the decision--and how it affected what I call a civil war political climate within big-time college football--you would not have the Bowl Championship Series today," he said. (quote from The Business of Sports)
*Here is how Frank Easterbrook, lawyer for the NCAA, summarized the challenged NCAA agreements in oral argument:
Two agreements are at issue.
One is the TV plan adopted by the NCAA's members and the other is a series of contracts signed between the NCAA and the ABC, CBS and Turner television networks. These agreements collectively govern the TV appearances of college football teams.
They give ABC and CBS the right to broadcast football in 14 time slots each fall, or roughly one slot per network per Saturday.
They require each network to broadcast a total of 35 different games each fall, and they require each network to broadcast the games of at least 82 different teams, different colleges, over a period of any two years.
Colleges may telecast games outside the network contracts only in compliance with a series of rules called the exceptions rules.
Although the exceptions rules have permitted the telecast of more than 100 games a year in recent years, they reduce the number of stations that can carry each game and they restrict the ability of colleges to broadcast their games when other nearby schools have not sold out their stadiums.
Interesting note: The NCAA defended the restriction as necessary to sustain robust live attendance at games. It is interesting to consider that point when looking at bowl attendances.
Also, former Detroit Lion Byron "Whizzer" White dissented and was joined by one other Justice (Rehnquist). White was the runner up for the Heisman Trophy in 1937 (White played for Colorado). He led the National Football League in rushing yards in his rookie season. White was admitted to Yale Law School in 1939 and played for the Detroit Lions in the 1940 and 1941 seasons.
White wrote in dissent, " the NCAA's television plan seems eminently reasonable. Most fundamentally, the plan fosters the goal of amateurism by spreading revenues among various schools and reducing the financial incentives toward professionalism."