PCM

I have found that if you don't hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, you tend to post what you know to be true rather than any gossip or rumor or hearsay that comes along. You also tend to speculate less and instead post informed opinion that

Even though you have a nice avatar, your request is denied because I suspect that you're being sacastic.

fs1, I live with PCM: I know PCM; PCM is a friend of mine. fs1, you're no PCM.

Because nobody ever challenges a single word I post here.

That's what I go on.

The NCAA is going after the "live bloggers" sitting in the press box because they are the easy targets. If you've ever had to deal with NCAA officials at an NCAA-sponsored athletic event, you'd know that they live to create rules and exert their authority to enforce them. It's what they do. It's how they feel important and in control. When I was UND's photographer at the 2000 Frozen Four in Providence, the NCAA insisted that each photographer wear a bright yellow arm band. Why? So they could see where you were at all times and yank you back into line if you were violating the rules. We also had to wear our NCAA-issued credentials at all times while in the arena, but that wasn't enough. After a while, it became obvious that those in charge of enforcing the rules didn't even know what the rules were. For example, we were told that we could only shoot photos from a few specifically designated areas in the arena. However, only one of those areas was any good for photography (great planning, NCAA). So all the photographers crammed themselves into that one area because it was the only decent vantage point of the ice. An NCAA official showed up at the start of the championship game and told us there were too many photographers in that area and that we'd have to split up. So I moved to a designated area on the other side of the arena. When I got there, it was jammed with spectators standing around watching the game. As I started setting up to shoot photos, an NCAA official came up to me and said that I'd have to move because I was blocking peoples' view. Although there were dozens of people blocking the view, I was the one singled out and told to move because I was wearing press credentials. So while I trudged back to the other side of the arena, Mike Commodore scored UND's first goal and I was in no position to capture it on film. I set up to shoot in another designated area, but there were so many spectators and so much glass between me and the action, it was impossible to get any decent shots. I moved back to the area where I started. Once again, an NCAA official showed up and said there were too many photographers in that area. Finally, I moved up to the press area near the press box and shot photos from there. It was too far away, but at least I had a good view of the ice. I've had a soft spot in my heart for the NCAA ever since.

I rest my case.

Anyone can say anything. That's all I have to say on this matter.

The NCAA's own blogger, Josh Centor of the Double-A Zone, disagrees with the association's position on live blogging.

Exactly. I'd be just like Dave Hakstol.

If I attended an NCAA-sponsored championship event as a member of the media, I would be prohibited from posting a "live blog" about a game in progress. Anyone watching the same game on TV or listening to it on the radio could post "almost live" updates and the NCAA could do nothing about it.

This goes to the point I made above. Nobody is being deprived of revenue from sports fans who can't attend games or watch them or listen to them via live broadcasts.

Yes, it is. Very true, but those organizations don't claim to be "non-profit" entities, as the NCAA does, for the puprose of receiving tax breaks. That's what I find so ironic about this. At the same time the NCAA portrays itself as not being interested in profit, it does everything it can to make sure that nobody makes a penny off the sporting events it sponsors. Agreed. Yes, I think it is very different. The idea of a "live blog" is something of a misnomer to begin with. When radio or TV covers a game, the broadcasters have the power to describe events as they're unfolding. It's physically impossible for a blogger sitting in the press box watching the game to do that. Nobody I know that type fast enough to describe what's happening "live." It may be mere seconds after the fact, but it is always after the fact. Any sports fan who has the option of listening to a live broadcast on the radio or watching it on TV isn't going to foresake radio or TV for a live blog. That's just silly. Therefore, treating a newspaper reporter's "live blogging" from the press box the same as someone broadcasting the game live without NCAA permission is patently absurd. I disagree. Unless someone can prove that they're being deprived of revenue because sports fans are forgoing radio and TV broadcasts in favor of live blogs, there is no reason to treat "live bloggers" the same as pirate broadcasters. There simply is no comparision. For the sake of SiouxSports.com, you shouldn't bring up that question. Otherwise, the NCAA might be knocking on your door soon.

The irony of the Louisville Courier-Journal's story linked from Brad's blog is almost too much. This is a First Amendment issue? Why, I've been told many times by many people -- including members of the media -- that the NCAA can do whatever the heck it wants because it's a private association. When the NCAA says it will punish UND for using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, the media says the university should roll over. But the Courier-Journal's attorney says: The NCAA engages in "extortion and thuggery"? I guess there's a first time for everything.

Brad Schlossman reports on the NCAA's new ban on live blogging. Having covered a couple of NCAA events as a member of the media, I know from firsthand experience that the association loves to issue rules and regulations designed to limit what reporters and broadcasters say and do. The NCAA, of course, has good reason to protect the broadcast rights of the sporting events it sponsors, but the fanatical zeal this "non-profit" organization employs to guarantee that nobody sees, hears or reads anything without its approval is something to witness in action.

As far as I'm concerned, you're so far off the track of the original point you made (which I can easily disprove) that your continued blathering on this subject is barely even worth this reply. Best of luck as you continue to debate yourself.

One word for next time: lamination.

Indeed. And it's very helpful and informative.

There was nothing slow about it. Those peach-scented bath oil beads are addictive!

It wasn't, but if anyone wants to make sure that doesn't happen, I'll accept private donations.

I was talking about before today. I guess I wasn't clear about that.

I don't recall giving you permission to channel me. But that could be because I forgot to take my Bayer vital and sharp mind softgel today.

That's why I like you.

They report when there's an outstanding balance. But it's like reporting that I haven't paid my Visa bill within a few days after receiving it in the mail. Just because I haven't paid it yet doesn't mean that I'm bankrupt.

During the news conference at which the lawsuit was announced, Kupchella stated in no uncertain terms that the cost would be covered by private donations. Who would be in a better position than him to know that? Nonetheless, every time there's an outstanding balance, it's reported as a significant development. Even after it was reported that the Engelstad Family Foundation had agreed to pay the cost of the lawsuit -- confirming what Kupchella said from the beginning -- the media continued to treat each unpaid balance as a significant development in the lawsuit, implying that there was no more money. So we now know that Kupchella wasn't lying when he said the cost would be covered and we know the Engelstads weren't lying when they said they'd pay the bills. But because "public speculation" is far better informed than either Kupchella or the Engelstads when it comes to financing the lawsuit, we must believe that the news media is being forced against its will to report on each unpaid balance. It's certainly not because the NCAA and other nickname opponents are using the media to advance their agendas. I would never be so tactless as to suggest such a thing.