A new kind of coverage puts sports honchos and the press at bloggerheads

	Photo Illustration by John Ueland

By Chris Ballard

Once there was just the game, and either you were there or you weren't. Then came radio, and those who staged the games worried it might cheapen their product. A few decades later television arrived, and again there was concern, for who would buy a ticket when the game was available in one's living room?

Now, the latest supposed danger to the game is blogging. Once derided as young men living in their parents' basement, typing up rants in their underwear, bloggers now not only wear pants, but if recent events are any indication, are also both feared and courted in the sports world.

First, the fear. On June 10 Brian Bennett, a reporter for The-Courier-Journal in Louisville, was tossed from the press box at an NCAA Super Regional game for live blogging. The NCAA said the reporter was infringing upon broadcast rights by providing description of the action. This contention begs to be mocked, for it's hard to imagine a fan preferring to read a hastily typed account of a baseball game rather than watch it. Especially considering the content of most live blogs. A representative post from Bennett during a Louisville game reads, "The Cards didn't get this kind of pitching in Missouri. If they can pitch like this and keep hitting like they do, whoa."

The NCAA contends that banning such scintillating in-game commentary is an extension of long-established rights. "The limitation against play-by-play on the Internet is intended to support our media partners' efforts to provide guaranteed, comprehensive coverage," says NCAA spokesman Bob Williams. "The policy provides ample opportunity for other media to cover NCAA events." His reference is to NCAA guidelines that say bloggers can only describe "the atmosphere, crowd and other details during a game." The CWS blog at ncaasports.com provides an example. During last week's games it noted a "jazzy rendition" of the national anthem, a "spectacular fireworks finale" and the observation that "ballpark food smells soooo good?I hope I can fit in my jeans by the end of the week."

From a business and common-sense standpoint, the NCAA's stance seems about as wise as author Jonathan Franzen's short-lived (and hastily reversed) objection to the selection of his novel The Corrections by Oprah's Book Club. This is especially true for college baseball, which is largely ignored until the College World Series (and often still then). If Oprah wanted to do a live feed from a series game, would the NCAA tell her it would rather not have the publicity?