By Pat Harty

IOWA CITY, Iowa – Please, make it stop.

In-game interviews with players and coaches are hurting the television viewing experience in every sport, but especially in the WNBA, because frankly, they’re annoying, awkward and unnecessary.

They’re hard to watch, and even harder to listen to because they just seem so forced.

I was reminded of that while watching Sunday’s much-anticipated WNBA matchup between Caitlin Clark and the Indiana Fever and Paige Bueckers and the Dallas Wings.

Why do the television viewers have to hear from a WNBA player after the first quarter of a game, or from any player in any sport after the first quarter for that matter?

Can’t the media wait until at least halftime?

Or, here’s a crazy thought: wait until after the game to conduct interviews like it used to be.

I haven’t spoken to anybody, man or women, who likes in-game interviews in college or professional sports. Some have even gone as far as to say that they would rather watch a television commercial than an in-game interview.

The halftime interviews with head coaches are hard enough to listen to because most of the coaches, if not all of them, would prefer to not do them.

Kirk Ferentz’s halftime interviews are like fingernails on a chalkboard, but to no fault of Ferentz.

If the Iowa football team is winning at halftime, Ferentz almost certainly would say during his brief halftime interview that he likes his team’s effort, and that he’s glad to be leading, but that there still is another half to play so we can’t let up.

If the Iowa football team is trailing at halftime, Ferentz almost certainly would say in response to any question that his team has to play better in the second half. He might acknowledge having to make some halftime adjustments, but he wouldn’t share anything specific because that could help the opponent.

It would be more interesting listening to Kirk Ferentz talk about his favorite ice cream or rock band at halftime rather than listening to guarded coach speak. But again, that isn’t criticizing Kirk Ferentz, or any coach that offers little insight during a halftime interview because they’re just doing what is asked of them.

Mike Leach, who passed away in 2022, was one of the few college football head coaches who actually seemed to embrace the in-game interview. But Leach was clearly an exception, and to say that he had a unique personality, and a gift for gab, would be an understatement.

His insight about the best Halloween candy is the stuff of legends.

Major League Baseball has taken in-game interviews to whole new level in that it has a player wearing a microphone and being interviewed while actually playing on defense.

St. Louis Cardinals shortstop Masyn Winn recently wore a microphone during a half inning on defense against the Chicago Cubs, who would go on to score five runs during the frame.

Winn deserves credit for hanging in there and finishing the interview under very tough circumstances.

It would be interesting to see the reaction if a player wearing a mic made a costly mistake on defense while being interviewed on the field because baseball is the kind of sport where one little miss-step or lack of focus could lead to disaster.

While Major League Baseball is trying to push its brand with these in-game interviews with players, there also comes a point when there is too much access.

The NBA will sometimes have a player wear a microphone during a game. But instead of interviewing the player during the heat of competition, brief clips of the player talking to his teammates, or to the opposition, will be aired during a break in the action, or re-played during the action.

Former San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich made it abundantly clear how he felt about in-game interviews by being dismissive, evasive, and sometimes, even a little stand-offish.

Popovich preferred to sort of mock the whole process surrounding in-game interviews, but he also had a gift for being funny while doing it.

The television viewer would learn very little from the 15- to 20-second interview besides being reminded that Popovich thought the whole thing was silly.

It’s hard enough watching athletes be interviewed just moments after winning an individual event in track and field, wrestling or swimming, because often times, the athlete barely can breath due to being exhausted, and also hasn’t had enough time to reflect on what just happened.

More of something isn’t always better, in this case access.

Holly Rowe does quality work as a sideline reporter for ESPN and for ABC, but it’s tough even for a top-notch professional like her to make in-game interviews something worth listening to, even for just a few seconds. The answers are usually predictable such as we have to play harder on defense, and play hard for four quarters, or for two halves depending on the sport, and the questions usually just ask for reflection for what just happened in one quarter or in one half.

It’s just a recipe for pain and failure.

Television obviously has great power and financial influence, so unfortunately, these in-game interviews in multiple sports are probably here to stay because money talks even when the players and coaches shouldn’t be talking.

The WNBA is obviously trying to push its brand and take advantage of its rising popularity with Caitlin Clark now in the league.

But too much of a good thing can backfire.

As great as Caitlin Clark is as a player, and as someone to interview, we don’t need to hear from her after the first quarter of a game.

And we definitely don’t need to hear from a WNBA head coach during a game.

Because can’t some things be left to our imagination?

Athletes and coaches already face enough distractions just from the competition itself.

In-game interviews are just another distraction from which nobody seems to benefit.

So again, make it stop.