Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NCAA Puts Severe Limits On Sport Event Blogging

Posted by Zonk on Thu Dec 20, 2007 02:41 PM
from the because-commentary-isn't-appropriate-for-sporting-events dept.
An anonymous reader writes "You would think that the NCAA would be thrilled to have reporters live blogging events in order to generate more interest and keep passionate fans talking about NCAA sports. Not so. The governing body of the NCAA has released new rules for receiving press credentials and it includes severe limits on live blogging. If you're covering NCAA football, make sure you don't blog more than 3 times in a single quarter. If it's baseball, one post an inning is all you get. If you don't follow the rules expect to get ejected and have your press credentials pulled."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Is it something like... chess?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It may seem like a joke, but basically the NCAA's position is "you guys are great until you start costing us sponsors or licensing revenue, then you're a nuisance," which is basically how rabid fans fans are treated by bands, sports teams, etc.

      - Greg
  • That's total bullshit. Either nobody will obey the rules, or nobody will blog anymore. I don't care one way or the other.

    Also, NCAA, shoot yourself in the foot much?

    • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)

      by HTH NE1 (675604) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:56PM (#21769066)
      Maybe they should adopt an even more restrictive information model to drum up more live interest, like the model of Brockian Ultra-Cricket where not only is there no reporting on the game, you can't even see the game when you attend it!

      Take it to the next level: completely seal up the arena so no one can observe the game other than the players and you'll have the Wide World of Schrödinger Sports!
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The owner of the BlackHawks (hockey) made an exclusive contract with comcast to air the the matches back in the 80s. As a result, they now have an entire generation that doesn't give a crap out their local NHL team and will could potentially lose a massive amount of future revenue.
    • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)

      by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:03PM (#21769176) Homepage

      Also, NCAA, shoot yourself in the foot much?
      They can't help it, they're the NCAA and as we all know on Slashdot, all organizations ending in "AA" are prone to shooting themselves in the foot by creating new rules/laws.
    • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)

      by sm62704 (957197) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:07PM (#21769258) Journal
      NCAA, shoot yourself in the foot much?

      The NCAA deals more with balls than feet, making the shot far more painful.

      -mcgrew
  • £5 says (Score:5, Funny)

    by Malevolent Tester (1201209) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:43PM (#21768834) Journal
    The baseball bloggers start compiling meticulous statistics on ejection averages.
  • by aepervius (535155) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:44PM (#21768852)
    I mean, if I am joe-everybody, and got somehow a pda with wireless connection in a stadium or mobile phone+internet, how can they even hope to stop me writing post in a blog (or even a normal html web page) on the exciting match I am just watching ? I can't see anything copyrighted here (describing an event in writing) where they could even stops me, would not it ? Less even detect at which seating I am ?
    • by pipatron (966506) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:52PM (#21768996) Homepage
      They might take your equipment before you are allowed entrance to the event. Wouldn't be surprised if this happens.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Which would be a violation of federal law.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                There's no law (that I'm aware of) that prevents them from barring those with cell phones, as stupid as that might be. It's jamming them that's illegal-- at least in the United States.
              • by NNKK (218503) <nknight@runawaynet.com> on Thursday December 20 2007, @05:35PM (#21771762) Homepage
                http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&id=cellular [fcc.gov]

                "The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government."

                This applies even on private property, because of the largely uncontrollable nature of signal propagation. For this same reason, it is effectively impossible for any person, entity, or government short of the federal government in the US to make any sort of rules relating to radio transmission, no matter where they try to enforce such rules.
    • This is the same organization that is used to discovering how many phone calls a coach's assistant made to a recruits uncle between the months of April and August from 4 years ago. Trust me, they've got no problem sweating the details.
    • by bcattwoo (737354) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:53PM (#21769022)
      And how are they going to take away your press credentials that you never had? This isn't for joe-everybody, it is for people with press credentials.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      They are talking about pulling offenders press passes -- so these are rules for people who are getting in under their rules to begin with. Not the guy in the stand blogging about the great game.
    • by hal2814 (725639) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:57PM (#21769072)
      "Less even detect at which seating I am ?"

      I think you miss the point. The only seating they are concerned with here is the press box (and anywhere else press credentials will get you like the sidelines in some cases). If you're going to blog from the stands, then no they can't stop you but if you're going to use your blog to become a card-carrying member of the press and get into the event on their dime, then you're going to play by their rules. Generally speaking they will be keeping an eye on you in that case. They're kind of stupid rules but at least bloggers can get press credentials for NCAA events.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        What happens if you need to be a card-carrying member of the press in order to legitimately live blog a game without being ejected? I guess I'm not seeing why they can't eject people who live blog, whether these people are press members or not.
    • by spiritraveller (641174) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:59PM (#21769102)
      It's targeted at people with press credentials. If you have press credentials, you probably aren't sitting in the stands. You are probably in the press area. And since you have applied for and received these credentials, they know who you are.

      How would they detect it? By checking your blog probably.

      Can they stop Joe Everybody from doing it? As a practical matter, probably not. And they probably aren't too worried about Joe Everybody (at least not yet). As for the legal issues, I don't see a problem with it. It's their game, and they set the rules. If you break the rules, they kick you out.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      How do they expect to detect this ?

      If you want to get press credentials then you've got to follow the rules. I'm sure part of the process of applying for the credentials involves letting the NCAA know which site you write for and as such they could check to see how many times you post to that site if they want to.

      Since this only applies to bloggers with press credentials, you can do whatever you damn well please if you just buy a ticket and sit in the stands like everybody else. Of course, good luck doi

  • This is so retarded it's hard to find the right words to express the expanse of stupidity it represents. Not to mention the 20,000 or so people in the stands texting and emailing pictures. Or are they going to take everyone's cell phone away and frisk them at the door?

    Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas.

  • by Itchyeyes (908311) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:46PM (#21768882)
    What exactly does the NCAA hope to accomplish by revoking press credentials when just about anyone can blog from anywhere with nothing more than a smart phone? Will the NCAA then start revoking peoples' cellphones at the gates? This move just reeks of idiocy.
    • Simple. By making the press creds for bloggers so draconian a burden that nobody accepts them, they avoid pissing off the big boys who like to believe they are special simply because they have press credentials and you, the huddled masses, don't.

      That's all this is. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      This move just reeks of idiocy.

      No, this move just reeks of GREED. Almost every time someone, especially a corporate or commercial interest, attempts to limit the freedom of information about them then you should start sniffing for dollars because they are doing so in an attempt to keep the money themselves. Greed is going to be the downfall of many old-school, established businesses and/or their processes even though it may take a while. Just look at the RIAA and MPAA for examples - unless they can someho

  • by FatAlb3rt (533682) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:46PM (#21768888) Homepage
    This coming from the group that put Florida State on notice [msn.com] for appearance in bowl games because of its mascot but made no mention of Notre Dame's? Somehow I'm not surprised.
  • Apropos poem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Smidge204 (605297) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:46PM (#21768900)
    I met a traveller from an antique land
    Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
    And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
    Nothing beside remains: round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.


    ~Percy Bysshe Shelley

    =Smidge=
  • To make sure, the torture of cheerleaders is not uncovered. Or something...

  • by gelfling (6534) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:50PM (#21768962) Homepage Journal
    Because we shouldn't delude ourselves that NCAA isn't a professional sports league.
  • The NCAA has proven once again that there DOES exist an organization that is more idiotic, closed minded, and out of touch with reality than either the MPAA or RIAA could hope to be. Bravo.
  • I can watch the game on TV at home or listen on the radio and blog it from home. Does my physically attending the game really help me do a better job of that? Can the NCAA eject me from my house?
  • by drooling-dog (189103) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:53PM (#21769002) Homepage
    ...why educational institutions ought to be in the business of quasi-professional sports in the first place. The tail has been wagging the dog for a long time now, and it's getting worse every year.
    • by QuasiEvil (74356) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:43PM (#21769814)
      Agreed - as someone who watched countless *academic* activities suffer every time the various sports programs needed money at my alma matter (despite the countless zillions their rights licensing brought in), I've always thought it was a complete travesty to everything higher education is about. Sports scholarships should be eliminated, and these jocks (at least the ones that are only there to play ball, and not really educate themselves) should go where they belong - minor league teams (which, I might add, the NFL could really use some sort of development league, much like minor league baseball and basketball teams produce players for MLB and the NBA).

      I'm probably the only person who actively cheers for whatever team is opposing my old university, just out of sheer hatred for the football program. Yeah, I've got anger issues.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Why? Because it makes money -- lots of money to fund all those things that geeks like such as research and scholarships.

        Well, I'm not sure how much revenue generated by athletics goes into "research and scholarships" (other than athletic scholarships, that is). But...

        I can go to the other pole as well: Why pretend that college athletics is some kind of overgrown extracurricular activity? If it has to be such a big deal on campus, let's acknowledge it for what it is (and I am not being facetious):

        (1) If students can major in things like music, dance, and art, why not let athletes major in football, basketball, or whatever? S

      • Do whatever it takes to get yourself on the board of regents of a university with a voting stake in the NCAA, and change the status quo.
        Ordinarily I would do just that, but the last time I complained about the war in Iraq someone told me I should run for President or STFU, and it's been taking all the time I have just to get that whole process started. Running for President, I mean.

        And don't even get me started about the time I complained about the weather...
  • by Enlarged to Show Tex (911413) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:53PM (#21769020)
    Basically, the NCAA is acting like the MPAA in an attempt to limit access to try to restrict the transmission of information with respect to its events, with an onward eye toward selling exclusive access rights to the highest bidder in the MSM.

    Hardly surprising from Myles Brand, the guy who made his claim to fame as the guy who fired Bobby Knight at Indiana...as many would say: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
  • by davmoo (63521) on Thursday December 20 2007, @02:55PM (#21769048)
    If its a private school, that's one thing. But if I'm at a game involving my local public university, which is supported by my tax dollars, I'm not going to bother getting press credentials, and I'll blog about any damned thing I want during their game. And I'll do it as often as I want. Fuck the NCAA. If they want to restrict my commenting on their sports, then their team's schools do not need my supporting tax dollars. My tax dollars, then its my property too. Period. No exceptions.

    (And yes, I feel the same way about a university's research. If that research was paid for by a company, they can control it how ever they like. But if that research was paid for by my tax dollars, then they can take their patent application and shove it up their collective ass.)
    • by stewbacca (1033764) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:04PM (#21769186)

      I'm not going to bother getting press credentials, and I'll blog about any damned thing I want during their game. And I'll do it as often as I want. Fuck the NCAA.
      Maybe I misread the article, but you are free to do exactly what you describe, since you don't have press credentials. No fucking of the NCAA is required. If it were the other way around there'd be a problem (i.e., prohibiting non-credentialed people from phoning/blogging in scores).
    • And yes, I feel the same way about a university's research. If that research was paid for by a company, they can control it how ever they like. But if that research was paid for by my tax dollars, then they can take their patent application and shove it up their collective ass.

      Unless they're getting the patent so some corporate entity doesn't patent their idea and make money off of their work. And lock them out of further research.

      There are defensive patents, you know.

  • For some reason it's the "live", in-person blogging that they don't want. I'm not sure what the issue is here. Is it because many NCAA events are not broadcast, but a "blog" is a "live", or pseudo-live transcript of the event that is not otherwise being seen live? huh? What did I just say?

    I don't get the reason behind this...
  • "Credentialed" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stewbacca (1033764) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:01PM (#21769144)
    This covers only credentialed reporters, which makes this a non-issue. Want credentials? Play by their rules. I guess it could breed a new type of papparazzi...the Uncredentialed Sports Blogger.
  • Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ubrgeek (679399) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:02PM (#21769162)
    When I was at jacksonville.com (the Florida Times-Union Website) the Jaguars had just come into being. Obviously the local paper was going to cover them. Two issues came up: As part of our server farm, we named our servers, "entertainment.jacksonville.com," "lifestyle.jacksonville.com," "business.jacksonville.com," etc. Because we knew the Jags site would be so popular, we didn't put it on sports.jacksonville.com. Instead it went on jaguars.jacksonville.com. The Jags and the NFL threw a fit, claiming that we were doing it in an effort to capitalize on the names (nevermind that we had server logs from more than a year prior showing our naming convention.) For the outcome, go to http://jaguars.jacksonville.com/ [jacksonville.com] ... It's still being used 10 years later.

    The second was they were having a fit because we were shooting pictures of the game and posting them to the site. Not in real-time. After the game. As part of our coverage. Our publisher agreed to stop doing so ... in exchange, the paper wouldn't write any articles about the team.

    So there we were, two days later, posting pictures to the site ... ;)
    • Considering how the jaguars have played most of the time, you were doing your readership a favor not covering them ;)
  • very misleading (Score:3, Insightful)

    by snarkh (118018) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:06PM (#21769238)
    From the FA:

    Now, before anyone goes screaming censorship or free speech or anything along those lines -- these are the rules that the NCAA is setting for credentialed reporters. And, as a private organization, the NCAA can set whatever rules it wants for handing out credentials, no matter how mind-numbingly stupid they may be.


  • by deweycheetham (1124655) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:12PM (#21769332)
    Welcome to the world of the Fighting Illini at the University of Illinois.

    The NCAA has outlawed any pictures or representations of our Mascot. Take a look and you can see why (if you can't, your in sensitive clod).

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Illinilogo.png [wikimedia.org]

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a2/2006-11-11_-_Chief_Illiniwek.jpg/200px-2006-11-11_-_Chief_Illiniwek.jpg [wikimedia.org]
  • by fermion (181285) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:15PM (#21769370) Homepage Journal
    One issue that has come up is the issue of whether the kids playing should have the protection we usually give kids, or if they should be treated like the pro players, or somewhere in between. On thing that is clear is that many NCAA players do receive some kind of compensation in excess of room, board, and classes normally awarded the top scholar, though likely not near the compensation of a pro player. Rules such as these also makes it clear that the NCAA itself behaves more like a pro sports organization than an amateur venue. On cannot, for instance, imagine an amateur musician, actor, athlete, or other entertainer limiting the press coverage of their act. The only people who wish to limit such coverage are those pro organization who need to monetize every score, stat, call, play, and image to generate the profits needed to support a pro organization.

    This is why I think the distinction is important. If the NCAA is an amateur organization, then we can forgive the situation when some of the member athletes do something stupid, like hire a stripper and serve beer to underage players, then do not have the maturity to excise themselves in a graceful way. But if they are not amateurs, of if NCAA wants to have the privileges affords pro sports, then they must also take on some of the responsibilities. Which means no one can call fowl when the players, even though they are kids, and have their names plastered across all the papers everytime they do something stupid. One cool thing about college is that one can get away with stuff one could never get away with on the outside. The side thing is that kids are accepting these high levels of responsibility without even thinking of the freedoms they are giving up.

  • by Adambomb (118938) on Thursday December 20 2007, @03:16PM (#21769396) Journal
    Calvin certainly said it best.

    Verbing weirds language.