The NCAA this week released a new set of rules for bloggers at collegiate sports playoffs and championship events, and the new rules are already inviting both criticism and ridicule. While they may or may not turn out to be short-sighted, they're actually a step forward for the NCAA, which previously had a policy toward blogging that can only be described as "medieval." And not the cathedral-building, monk-beer-brewing, Aristotle-philosophizing "medieval," either; think Black Death and Fourth Crusade "medieval."

Back in June, the NCAA stirred up some negative press for each ejecting a Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky) sports reporter from an NCAA super-regional baseball game. Staffer Brian Bennett had been blogging to the paper's web site as the game was in progress, despite an NCAA memo circulated in advance of the game that warned against blogging "between the first pitch and the final out of each game."

Bennett's press credential was revoked and he was kicked out of the press box. The newspaper's attorney later railed against the NCAA, saying, "Once a player hits a home run, that's a fact. It's on TV. Everybody sees it. [The NCAA] can't copyright that fact. The blog wasn't a simulcast or a recreation of the game. It was an analysis."

Six months after that incident, the NCAA has adopted an official "blogging policy" (PDF) for its championship events that allows every credentialed reporter to have the "privilege" of blogging during games. A number of minor conditions are imposed, but the most limiting one concerns the number of posts that can be made during a particular event.

Covering fencing, skiing, or rifle? You can blog a maximum of 10 times per event. Lacrosse? Three posts per quarter, with another allowed at halftime. Basketball gets five posts per half and another at halftime, while football (Division I-FCS and lower only; bowl games are run by the NCAA) gets three per quarter and one at halftime.

This all seems a bit silly; after all, who's going to sit around refreshing a blog in place of watching or listening to the game through an outlet that has paid the NCAA money for broadcast rights? (The NCAA wants to guarantee the value of its broadcast licenses, and it wants to keep control over the way such events are disseminated.)

But on the other hand, the limits seem pretty reasonable. If someone is blogging more than 11 times during a single basketball game (and they're free to post whatever they want both before and after the action), then it's at least within the realm of possibility that the sheer amount of material coming out of the game could be enough to keep some fans from tuning into other, paying media outlets.

Two other notes: this applies only to NCAA-sponsored tournaments, and it applies only to credentialed members of the press.

Blogging about NCAA sports shows passion for the events, and can help foster a community around certain sports. Marquee events like football, basketball, and baseball may derive little benefit from live-blogging, but the smaller events like fencing, rowing, and bowling certain could. The NCAA should be encouraging its bloggers, who aren't charging the NCAA a penny for promoting its offerings, not limiting them, especially for sports that still truly are the preserve of amateur scholar-athletes.