Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

This is a 1 vs 16 seed match up (and not the UVA/UMBC variety).  The NCAA vs OU (and Georgia) case (1984) was really about who has the right to control content, and specifically the broadcast rights of said content.  Old model,  NCAA called the shots and determined how frequently a program could appear on TV, among other things.  The point is, they controlled the content.  Court found the NCAA violated Sherman Act (anti-trust) and programs, and conferences, and networks should be free to control how their content is to be distributed (TV, radio, on-line, whatever).  The NCAA primary reason for limiting TV appearances was to protect attendance (something the NFL maintained as its reasons for the blackout rule, which has basically been ignored lately and is now extremely hard to trigger a local blackout, if at all).   

Trivia:  Who wrote the dissent?   The aforementioned in a # thread (Byron Whizzer White), joined by Rehnquist.

Of course, the date of this case coincides with the proliferation of cable television, ESPN was about 4 years old, and there were a slew of regional sports networks out there wanting to broadcast live sports.     Some of these 'new' bowl games started to pop up on Raycom, among others.  

Yeah, that's a point I hadn't considered.

I hate all the bowls, and my counter to the "How is more football bad?  Just don't watch it" argument is that the proliferation of bowls devalues way more games than it adds, as does the randomness of bowl selection.  Basically once you get to 6, sometimes 5 wins, you are going to a bowl, and how many you win beyond that may not really even impact how good of a bowl you go to.  So what is my interest in watching, just for example, a game between 5-3 Oklahoma State and 5-3 Kansas State?  You reduce the number of bowls, you make going to a bowl an actual reward, you increase the stakes of a great number of very good (but maybe not CFP impacting) games late in the year.

So to me the end of the TV monopoly seemed easy, but your point, that while it was a good thing in a vacuum, the things I dislike about the game are also a result of it, is well taken.