Unfortunately, the information you have is wrong. This is the first time blogging has been restricted at an NCAA event. There has been no mention of blogging specifically in any of the press credentials or anything else that the media is given, until ththis memo was passed out on Friday.
Actually, the NCAA hasn't restricted blogging before. This was the first time they've done this. There wasn't a ban on blogging at March Madness this year, nor was there a ban on blogging at any of the bowl games.
Brian Bennett (and the Courier-Journal) knew that there was the possibility he'd be told to stop, or told to leave, based on conversations the day before. The decision that he was going to blog anyway was made by his editors before the game, and if they tried to stop him, the paper would file suit. That's what happened. It's not like he did this on his own.
The policy is a sham, and the paper is fighting it. He's not "rebroadcasting" the game, as some have said. It's called reporting. Fair use. Consider this: At the Kentucky Derby, the Courier-Journal has over 20 reporters, plus 10 photographers, all blogging and posting photos throughout the day. Technology has changed to allow this kind of reporting by what used to be traditional print media. Newspapers have 10 times the resources in terms of reporters, editors, and photographers of all the other broadcast media in most local markets.
The NCAA thinks they can restrict that kind of coverage. This is just the tip of the lawsuit iceberg if they don't change their policy rather quickly (and I think as this develops, they'll find that the big media companies have a lot better lawyers than they do).
Slashdot Mirror
Read Brian's blog for more info http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/bennett/2007/ 06/ejected-and-dejected.html
Basically, the NCAA is now interpreting their "live broadcast" rights to include blogging. The Courier-Journal is challenging that interpretation.
Actually, the NCAA hasn't restricted blogging before. This was the first time they've done this. There wasn't a ban on blogging at March Madness this year, nor was there a ban on blogging at any of the bowl games. Brian Bennett (and the Courier-Journal) knew that there was the possibility he'd be told to stop, or told to leave, based on conversations the day before. The decision that he was going to blog anyway was made by his editors before the game, and if they tried to stop him, the paper would file suit. That's what happened. It's not like he did this on his own. The policy is a sham, and the paper is fighting it. He's not "rebroadcasting" the game, as some have said. It's called reporting. Fair use. Consider this: At the Kentucky Derby, the Courier-Journal has over 20 reporters, plus 10 photographers, all blogging and posting photos throughout the day. Technology has changed to allow this kind of reporting by what used to be traditional print media. Newspapers have 10 times the resources in terms of reporters, editors, and photographers of all the other broadcast media in most local markets. The NCAA thinks they can restrict that kind of coverage. This is just the tip of the lawsuit iceberg if they don't change their policy rather quickly (and I think as this develops, they'll find that the big media companies have a lot better lawyers than they do).