As news came out earlier this week that NFL coaches will be required to give interviews during games, many have wondered whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. That topic came up on Grant & Danny with hosts Grant Paulsen and Danny Rouhier on 106.7 The Fan in Washington DC.
The two hosts talked about how these will not be the usual interviews on the way to or from the locker room, these will be during the game as we see with the NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball. They also discussed the number of times these interviews are nothing more than a mediocre question with an even worse answer. However, as Paulsen noted, “This is how we found out when [Ron] Rivera said, remember at halftime of the Bears game, coming out at halftime, ‘what did you say to the team? Well, I didn’t say anything. I’ll let them do the talking, okay?’… They want these interviews done during the actual game with these coaches.”
In response, Rouhier said, “For me, 90-some percent of them are, I don’t want to say a waste of time, because that’s not how I feel. They’re non-needle movers, for the most part. It’s a cliche, it’s hard to get a probing in-depth kind of question. They’re looking to get out of there. The host, or the sideline reporter almost feels bad having to ask them to interrupt their job. But every one out of 10, every one out of 20, you get that Rivera answer. You get that, ‘oh my god, my jaw’s on the floor, what are you talking about, what are you doing, dude?’ …And that’s why it’s worth it to me.
“You watch it just in case you see something. Most of the time, when I’m watching, like, a Tuesday night NBA game late at night, or I’ll flip around MLB Network and see the Padres and the Mariners playing an interleague game, you’re not going to see much. You’ll see baseball, and it’s fine, it’s good, but you might see the thing you never saw. You might see the triple play. You might see the guy hit for the cycle. You might see the greatest catch you’ve ever seen. And that’s kind of the point. You keep throwing it up at the wall in case something incredible sticks. So, you brought up that Rivera example, which is a great one. Most of them, to me, are sort of non-needle movers. Not that exciting. But every once in a while, you get that, I’m never going to stop thinking about this.”
Paulsen could not understand why the NFL would be looking to add more of this type of content when he believes fans want less of it and he sighted some facts supporting that.
“This is something that I need people to explain to me…Most fans routinely say they want to get rid of these types of interviews. And the idea is ‘they don’t help me.’ To your point, at a 90-some percent clip, nothing interesting is going to be said. Mediocre question gets asked. Answer that’s a nothing-burger retort. Maybe a second question, a second quick answer.
“Sometimes, if the coach is really engaging, it can be entertaining. Like Mike McDaniel is normally good. Funny and long-winded. But for the most part, there are guys that Belichick-it and just pre-word it. ‘We’ve got to play better.’ ‘We’ve got to coach better.’ You know, the Nick Saban thing.”
Paulsen said he understands those that are not a fan of the questions or answers, but what he didn’t understand is how people could be adamant about something that is not much of a factor in the overall broadcast but does have some things you can always take from them.
“There was a poll I saw, it might have been Pro Football Talk that did it,” he said. “And 88 percent of people said that they wish they didn’t do these coaches interviews. I don’t understand that logic. I like seeing the demeanor of a coach, even if he doesn’t say anything interesting. I know he’s probably not going to. I expect to hear two answers that are ten seconds long that are clichés that mean absolutely nothing. But it’s a nice part of the furniture of the game for me. It’s a nice part of the fabric to just see the personality a little bit or how they’re handling right before the game, either the jitters or during the game.
“Like, what’s going on? Are they friendly? Are they pleasant? Do they call the person by their name? Are they a jerk? Are they terse? I like all of that. And even if you’re not taking anything out of it at all, even to that extent, what is the harm here? I enjoy more access, more peeling back of the curtains. And it just seems like people go, ‘oh, they’re not going to say anything interesting. That’s a waste of my time.’ Why? What’s the harm?”
