I had a great column planned for this week, one detailing my quest to meet Michael Jordan as he presumably came to Champaign to drop off his son. It was a good column, involving things like throwback jerseys and camping outside Illini Tower. If Jeff Jordan (who I’ve never met) or basketball PR rep Derrick Burson (who is currently rolling his eyes) happen to read this and can help me out, you have my undying love.

But I must set aside my devotion to that most lovable of Bulls to discuss a more serious issue: NCAA access rules and journalists’ First Amendment rights.

Last Sunday, an NCAA representative told a journalist that he had to stop posting online updates during a Louisville-Oklahoma State baseball game. It was the final stand of a three-game series the writer blogged throughout. He blogged at the NCAA basketball tournament a few months earlier, and at the Orange Bowl.

But NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said the issue was that the NCAA had finally learned about what it considered a violation of its policy.

“We enforce the policy as we learn of violations,” said Williams.

I’ve covered NCAA sporting events for four years, and in that time have learned a lot about protocol and quid-pro-quo reporting.

When covering college sports, reporters deal with sports information directors like Burson. In men’s basketball and football, an SID’s job often means making sure players aren’t swamped with questions and reporters know the full story before printing something that might reflect poorly on the program. In “Olympic” sports like gymnastics, track and baseball, it usually involves encouraging media outlets to cover teams that might not have as large of a fan base.

When reporters cover a game, they depend on the NCAA or the school to issue credentials and provide official statistics: number of rebounds, rushing yards, finish times, etc.

It is a give-and-take that, in most cases, works well for both parties.

But last Sunday the NCAA took an unnecessarily harsh step. I understand its reasoning. The NCAA sells broadcast rights of many events to CBS and ESPN, and may think the live online reporting created unwanted competition. It might also hurt traffic on its own Web site, NCAAsports.com.

The NCAA has a good system set up, one that usually works in journalists’ favor. I’d have no clue how to talk to Michael Jordan, for example, without people like Burson. And while I’m sure Ron Zook would tell you he hasn’t exactly loved some of my football stories, he’s never stopped me from covering his team.

The blogging ban takes things too far. It is in the best interest of the NCAA and of the media to encourage all possible coverage, especially at events that don’t draw the kind of attention given to March Madness or the Bowl Championship Series.

The NCAA has the right to restrict access to its events. It likely provided the reporter’s Internet connection – at a charge – and certainly gave him access to the game. But if it wants reporters to cover lower-interest events like baseball, it has to understand reporters’ needs.

Blogging is now a part of journalism. This will likely become a bigger issue, especially if the NCAA starts enforcing a regulation I, honestly, had never before heard of.

The NCAA needs to stick to its own policy. Give a little to get a little. And it needs to give on this one.