Did you notice how coaches react to these interviews at the end a quarter? Aside from annoyed faces, some of them answer back with sarcasm. I don't think this is appropriate. They have to focus on the game. Whoever got this idea must be a um.. never mind.
i think its a bad idea. maybe joe shmoe who watches 1 basketball game a year gets value out of it, but if im a real fan of the team, i want my coach focused on his players and not having to worry about talking to reporters who don't ask anything insightful. the wired-mics on players are also lame. although its fun to hear the players talk, you know they'll end up saying things just because they know they're miked up. instead, they should just leave a mic on the floor so we can hear what every player is saying in situ. i want to hear the trash talking, not the staged 'look at me' remarks alot of the wired players make.
No one looks more pissed off than Popovich. I bet if Bob Knight was in the league this stupid idea won't exist. It's real dumb. I don't mind the players being mic'd up. I know they still cuss alot and such, just that the producers select which tidbits to display.
Haha, I was gonna bring his ass up. He looked like he was going to bite the interviewer's head off. Some of the coaches actually give decent interviews, but I like it much more because of the unintentional hilarity/awkwardness and occasional hostility.
Yep, I dont like it, why the media cant wait to the end of the game, to interview someone, and other thing, the press conference after the game, is for that, to know about what they think (coaches and players) about the game.
I like the interviews, and IMO, the ones with Pop where he seems annoyed are the ones with Craig Sager. I think he's playing up a gimmick/image with Sager. For example, one time he took the handkerchief from Sager's suit and blew his nose on it, then put it back in the coat pocket. I've always thought he at least tried to give semi-thoughtful responses to most of the interviewers. I don't care if the coaches don't like it. Sometimes you have parts of your job that you don't like, but you have to do them and do a good job with them because that's part of your job.
It's not the worst idea ever, I think Joe Schmoe casual fan guy probably thinks he's getting inside info and Phil gets to run his mouth during some high price air time. Just like everything else the NBA gives us 'inside' looks at at, it is filtered, generic, and boring. Also, I seriously cannot stand anytime they split the screen when the game is back on, like when they showing stats or interviews on the side. The only thing I want to hear is the on-court trash talking. Mic up Soulja Boy while we're at it.
do you think they will share the not obvious ones? having coaches as analyst during the game like Jeff , Hubie brown is good enough. it's not about your job, it's about fairness to the clubs, to the game. What if your interview time is before the 4th Q and you're down in points and you need to give your team some fresh plans... but then your time was eaten by the interview? I think there will be a time when we will hear responses like the one Stevie Franchise did to Craig.
It's totally stupid, but I guess they have to justify having 1-2 sideline reporters per game. It takes away from the game and adds nothing to the broadcast. Why can't the networks just leave things alone and focus on the game instead of all these gimmicks?
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qMFESumRgkA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qMFESumRgkA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Its something i've always hated and unfortunately its been added to American soccer. The MLS always has reporters interviewing the coaches at half-time. Its a stupid idea imho.
