One might get the impression that the NCAA thinks so, according to a story by WebProNews reporter Kara Ratliff. She draws attention to the organization's decision last month to put blogging conditions on media credentials for covering its events.
The conditions are very specific, setting quotas for the number of posts that one is allowed to write per segment of a given sporting event. She quotes sports bloggers who are critical of the action, noting that the policy doesn't bar an uncredentialed person from live blogging the event while watching it on TV.
I didn't see a rationale given for the rules, but my guess is that the NCAA believes that the existence of alternative, yet immediate, textual coverage about its sanctioned events must somehow dilute the value of the exclusive (and lucrative) contracts it has with radio and TV networks.
I can't help but think that the NCAA, whose headquarters are just a few blocks away from this office, is horribly misguided on this decision. Blogs are not threatening to replace TV, radio, or even print coverage of an event.
While live blogging certainly will contain references to what is happening during the game, there is no way that a reporter's fingertips are going to keep pace with the voice of an announcer or the images conveyed by a camera. The value of the broadcasts is that they are not only immediate, but also rich in factual information.
My guess is that a good deal of the live blog readers already have the game turned on via TV or radio and read the blog for the running commentary. The emphasis is on interpretation, not on the raw events themselves.
A blog can help a viewer catch up on missed plays when the fan has stepped away from the TV, and a reader can be entertained by the witty remarks that the blogger might make about the latest fumble or slam dunk.
The bottom line is that blogs enhance the total viewing experience. They don't replace it. They keep viewers engaged in the game, and that makes the broadcast more valuable, not less.
