Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve shows exactly why in-game interviews don’t work

The article criticizes the practice of in-game coach interviews during WNBA broadcasts, questioning their purpose and benefit. Networks promote them as "unprecedented access" for fans, but the piece suggests neither the audience nor the coaches actually want this access. Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve's recent interview with ESPN during a game against the New York Liberty exemplifies the problem; she appeared unenthusiastic, providing only minimal, obligatory answers ("It's great," "We just need her to be aggressive") while clearly focused on coaching her team during a close game.

Reeve's reaction is presented as typical, not an exception. The article notes former coaches from the Indiana Fever and Chicago Sky, and current coach Becky Hammon, have also expressed frustration with the interviews. These interactions are seen as disruptive and a poor fit during high-intensity moments of the game.

The article argues the problem lies not with the broadcasters (like Ryan Ruocco and Rebecca Lobo, who asked softball questions about player chemistry and assists), but with the interview concept and format itself. These mid-game interviews rarely yield meaningful insight, especially later in close contests. Instead of creating intimacy, they often result in awkwardness and dead air.

The piece concludes that the interviews fail to enhance the broadcast. It advocates for letting coaches focus solely on coaching and letting the game flow naturally. It suggests networks need to find a better way to engage the audience that doesn't put coaches in an uncomfortable position they clearly dislike, stating that currently, "nobody’s getting what they want."