It seems the NCAA has a policy on journalists blogging from the body’s sanctioned events.  In some instances journalists have been booted from the press box for violating the policy:

This isn’t the first time the NCAA has cracked down on blogging. In
June 2007, Brian Bennett of the Louisville Courier-Journal was thrown
out of the press box for posting live updates on a Louisville-Oklahoma
State baseball game. The NCAA said in a memo to reporters that "no blog
entries are permitted between the first pitch and the final out of each
game." Scott Bearby, an associate general counsel for the NCAA, told the New York Times
that the governing body had a right to protect the contracts it
establishes with television networks and its own Internet providers.

According to the article the policy "allows for only five blog entries per half, one at halftime and two in an overtime period of football and basketball games."  This is incredibly stupid on so many levels, but to start with let’s state the obvious:

• People are going to live blog an event, whether or not its from the press box.  The NCAA apparently missed the whole "citizen journalism" memo.
• The way traditional media are bleeding jobs the NCAA should be grateful for any coverage they’re getting.
• I don’t care how good the blogger is, reading about the action won’t hold a candle to actually watching the game or listening to it on the radio. We don’t watch the games merely to get the scores, we watch to see how the scores come about.
• How is a blogger interfering with the official "internet providers"?  If a blogger can replicate what an "internet provider" is providing then the NCAA has some seriously crappy contracts.

The NCAA is exhibiting the same kind of behavior I’ve seen with some companies. They have this whole concept of image control and traditional media management that is being completely blown out of the water by the developments of the last 5-10 years.  They don’t seem to realize that in today’s media environment it is impossible to control the message and that rather than trying to micro-manage the messengers they should concentrate on creating an environment that prompts the messengers to speak positively of them in their own way.

To use the NCAA case as an example I’d say they’d be better served if they embraced the bloggers.  Some ideas:

• Have a box on the official "internet providers" streaming video that shows RSS feeds of all the bloggers covering the event.  So if it’s a football game the viewer could see what the bloggers are writing next to the window that’s showing the streaming video feed (if that’s what it is).  This would allow the fans at home to see what others are saying and compare it to what they’re seeing with their own eyes.
• Have the producers of the broadcasts monitor the feeds and react to interesting items on the air.  They already do that with emailed questions that the on air analysts answer, so why not use the feeds for on air fodder?  Think about it for a second and you realize that the "official" media would be getting extra content for nothing.  Why would they not want that?
• Easy objection to the above: What if the bloggers are saying something negative about the commentators or the player?  Well, it’s going to be said/written anyway and you might as well give your official providers a chance to respond in their own defense.  And hey, nothing jacks ratings like a little controversy.

Hat tip to John Robinson for the link to the story.