Q/A with Doris Burke: Her ‘angst’ at dealing with Gregg Popovich; Admires coach despite ‘turnovers’ moments

A man approached Doris Burke while she was taking a tour of St. Jude Hospital in Memphis during the Western Conference Finals.

“This gentleman said, ‘(The in-game interview with) Gregg Popovich is my favorite part of the game,” Burke said. “I said, ‘I’m glad you’re enjoying it.'”

For Burke, it always is a thrill ride with a distinct possibility of a crash landing. And guess what? Burke will get another full dose of the San Antonio coach during ABC’s coverage of the upcoming NBA Finals. She will be in her usual role as sideline reporter.

There will be no turning away when it comes time for Popovich’s in-game interviews. Not after a now infamous exchange between Burke and Popovich during the Western Finals. Popovich tersely said “turnovers” twice in response to Burke’s questions.

The interview received quite a bit of attention, and Popovich was roundly criticized. Not that it matters to him.

However, it does matter to Burke. She is one of the best sideline reporters in the business with her direct questions and observations about basketball.

In the first of a two-part interview, Burke discusses her in-game experiences and relationship with Popovich; dealing with LeBron James; and the value of the in-game interview.

How do you approach an NBA Finals that you know includes Greg Popovich?

There’s no coach in the league, including Phil Jackson when he was in the league, where I feel more angst for the (in-game interview) than Gregg Popovich. Do I go into the finals with the idea in the back of my head that seven more times at the end of the quarter I have to interview him? You bet you I do. There’s no question about it.

I try very hard not to take his reactions personally. I’ll be honest with you. It is not easy.

What is your relationship with him?

He makes it clear in every conversation we have how much respect he has for me.

Gregg Popovich is one of my favorite coaches in the league in terms of his approach and what he stands for. I’ll give you a contrast when it comes to me and Gregg Popovich. He’s responsible for one of the greatest moments of my career. And one of my worst.

The worst was the first time I had to interview him for his in-game interview. Keep in mind, I have great admiration for him. Instead of just asking him a simple question, I tried to be smart. In doing so, I think the final line, the lead-in to my question was, “What was the problem with your defense?”

Well, he crossed his arms, he got the scariest smile on his face I’ve ever seen, his face got a little red. I really do not have any recollection what he said. When I went back to my seat, the producer came in my ear and said, ‘Doris, do you mind if we don’t run it?’ I said, ‘Thank you for not humiliating me.’ It literally was that bad.

Well, fast forward three years and I’m doing the color analyst work. A different job. We go to his office during the pregame. Some subject came up, and he looked directly at me, ‘Doris, you’re a basketball person. You know what I’m talking about.’ He wouldn’t remember it, but for me, a woman doing that job, he’ll never have any idea how much that meant to me. And how much confidence that gave me.

Has he ever told you how much he doesn’t like doing the in-game interview?

Well, it’s blatantly obvious how much he objects to it. He wants to be in the huddle with his team. It’s not optional for him. Unfortunately for the sideline reporters, it’s not optional for us either. If he doesn’t want to do it, he has to effort that kind of change with the league. We’re going in whether he wants to do it or not.

I think he has a great feel for human beings. He could sense if you’re less than secure. Or he could sense if the person asking the question is making it about (the interviewer) and as opposed to being about the game.

My worry is how he comes across to the viewing public. The one-word answer isn’t the true representation of Gregg Popovich, the man. In fact, it’s 180-degrees from the man.

You mentioned Phil Jackson as someone who also caused you “angst.” How so?

When the in-game interview first was instituted, so many coaches objected to doing it. They made it clear by the brevity of their answer or their tone of their answer, or their body language.

Phil is like Gregg Popovich. If you come with a question he doesn’t feel is appropriate, he will not hide his displeasure.

Who are the players and coaches who get it?

When Indiana upset the Knicks, David West in the post-game interview, gave me two well-thought, interesting responses. I don’t remember specifically what he said, but as he was leaving the court, I made a point of saying to him, “David, I so appreciate you taking the time to think about my question.” It was that good.

Doc Rivers is tremendous. If he’s angry, he’s going to let you know. He’s going to lay it on the line.

How about LeBron James?

I give him a lot of credit. He’s the big star and he has to answer questions after every game. It’s basketball. You can’t reinvent the wheel, and there’s only so many ways you can ask a question.

After the Heat won last year, I asked him, ‘Put this championship in perspective in light of everything you’ve gone through.’ I don’t have the exact quote, but it was excellent.

He is another very thoughtful guy. He tries to respond to the question that is asked as opposed to going in the direction he wants to go in.

How do you feel about the purpose of the in-game interviews?

I don’t think my feelings are necessarily important. There are times where we get great answers. What the percentage is relative to poor answers or pat answers, I don’t know. I will say this: I know that ESPN is very proactive in terms of focus groups. They are constantly asking viewers about what they like and don’t like. My sense is the in-game interviews get some positive feedback. Otherwise, they would serve no purpose.

The fans want to hear from the coaches, from the players. The only thing I’m trying to do when I ask a question is, “What would I be curious about if I was watching the game at home?”

As difficult as it was when Popovich said, ‘Turnovers, turnovers’ to me, I got three different texts from people in the business who said, ‘It is must-see TV.’ They understand the kind of reaction Popovich is going to have, and for them, it is entertaining content.

Part 2: On whether being a sideline reporter hurts Burke’s credibility as an analyst?

 

 

Rooting for Heat: ABC, NBA don’t want Pacers-Spurs finals

The best of times for TNT tonight could turn into the worst of times tonight for ABC and the NBA if the wrong team wins.

With a huge rating looming for TNT off of an Indiana-Miami Game 7, it could be a ratings disaster if LeBron James and company are watching Pacers-San Antonio in the finals on ABC.

That nightmare scenario would feature two small market teams; Indy ranks 26 while San Antonio is 36. One of them, Indiana, has no marquee stars, while the other, the Spurs, has perhaps the most unheralded superstar in the history of sports. Sorry, but Tim Duncan doesn’t get people rushing to their TVs.

ESPN already got the short straw this year with the Western Conference Finals. San Antonio’s four-game sweep over Memphis (another small market team) only averaged a 3.4 rating.

Meanwhile, Game 5 of Pacers-Heat on TNT averaged 8.5 million viewers on Thursday. Still waiting for numbers for Game 6 on Saturday, but they definitely were high. Given the build-up, it seems likely TNT could pull in more than 10 million viewers tonight.

Those fans are tuning in to see if LeBron and Miami can avoid the upset. They will stay tuned in on ABC if the Heat win and go for a second straight title in the finals.

It’s all about star power, and with the possible exception of Tiger Woods, no star makes the ratings meter move more than LeBron James.

So they won’t be impartial in the ABC/ESPN executive offices tonight. And the NBA certainly doesn’t want to risk negative reading stories about low ratings for the finals.

Make no mistake, they will be rooting for the Heat tonight.

 

 

 

 

Posted in NBA

Good luck trying to get anything out of Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan and the San Antonio Spurs haven’t been to the NBA Finals since 2007. While it seems like a short time, it’s light years when you look at what has happened with sports media.

Duncan will encounter a much more intense spotlight this time around. Given the scope of his great career, the media will try extra hard to pry  some deeper insights from the reticent superstar. After all, this might be his last trip to the big dance.

Well, good luck with that.

Tommy Tomlinson of Sports on Earth did a terrific piece on Duncan this week. He writes how nobody is able to penetrate the shell.

Tomlinson writes:

Even when athletes seek out the camera and are in our faces all the time, it’s hard to say we know them. Sometimes beneath the surface is just more surface. But we really don’t know Tim Duncan. He keeps his life off the court private. He turns down most endorsements. He declines soul-searching interviews. The vast majority of what we know about him, we know from watching him play basketball. More than any other modern athlete, Tim Duncan is what he does.

Later, Tomlinson writes:

The star of the game usually goes to a separate interview room to meet the media. Duncan does not come. Manu Ginobili comes instead. But Duncan does say a few words in the locker room.

“I thought I was a lot more hesitant throughout the game, for whatever reason,” he says.

“In overtime, I just got it and shot it,” he says.

“It’d be fun to get it done again,” he says about playing for another title.

His quotes add almost nothing. And that’s exactly the point.

The storyteller’s first rule is Show, don’t tell. Tim Duncan doesn’t need to say a word to show his love for the game. He doesn’t need to explain how you can build towering greatness out of the same small things done night after night, year after year. His actions speak. Just watch the wizard.

Welcome back to the NBA Finals, Tim Duncan. Looking forward to what you don’t have to say.

 

 

 

Posted in NBA

Maddening: Too many two-day gaps in NHL, NBA playoffs

I really don’t understand it. The NHL compressed its season to jam in 48 games. The schedule required players to play several back-to-backs.

Then the playoffs roll around, and the pace is reduced to a leisurely stroll.

Take the Chicago-Detroit series. After Game 1 on Wednesday, May 18, there was a two-day break until Game 2 on Saturday. Then after playing Game 3 on Monday, there is another two-day break until Game 4 tonight.

The Pittsburgh-Ottawa series already has had two 2-day breaks. Boston-New York Rangers had two days off between Games 1 and 2 last week.

If you think that is bad, after playing Game 2 on Tuesday night, the San Antonio-Memphis series has a three-day break until Game 3 on Saturday in Memphis.

What’s the reason for all this? Of course, television.

(Note: In the case of Chicago-Detroit, Game 2 had to be pushed to Saturday because of the possibility of a Game 6 in the Chicago-Miami series that would have been Friday night in the United Center.)

The networks are trying to package these series so they can maximize ratings. That means spreading them out to minimize multiple games on the same day.

However, the long gaps interrupt the flow of these series for fans. I don’t know about you, but it annoys me to have to wait two or three days between games.

I also think the gaps provide a competitive advantage for older, veteran teams who can benefit from the extra days of recovery. I’m sure Tim Duncan and the Spurs aren’t complaining.

At least the NBA is ahead of the NHL. Thanks to the lockout, there’s a long way to go before anyone lifts the Stanley Cup.

You would think there would have been a greater sense of urgency to accelerate the NHL playoffs for an earlier finish. The finals now could extend into late June. Really, will anyone care by then?

 

Chicago ratings battle: Bulls barely beat Blackhawks in head-to-head match-up

There was an interesting ratings battle last night in Chicago. The Bulls and Blackhawks went head-to-head for most of the night with playoff games.

The Bulls won a squeaker. They did an 8.87 local rating for their Game 5 against Miami on TNT. Tipoff was at 6 p.m. Central.

Meanwhile, the Blackhawks’ Game 1 against Detroit, which started at 7 p.m., pulled in an 8.13 local rating on NBC Sports Network.

Of course, it should be pointed out that all things weren’t equal. There’s a big difference between a Game 5 of a playoff series compared to Game 1. A much bigger sense of urgency.

Also, the Bulls played terrific in their David vs. Goliath bid to overtake LeBron and the big, bad Heat. The game was highly compelling and definitely pulled in viewers.

Thanks to the time difference, Chicago fans were able to stay through the end of the Bulls game and then tune in for the third period of the Blackhawks game.

The bottom line: It was a huge night for sports viewing in Chicago. As the Blackhawks continue their run, expect their Chicago rating to soar.

 

 

What they’re saying: Gay sportswriter rejoices; CBS’ Brando says Collins not a hero

Quite a reaction indeed.

Chuck Culpepper in Sports on Earth, who wrote about being gay for the first time earlier this year:

The deluge of positivity surrounding this issue has astounded me, especially after six years abroad. You spend a good long while in life just hoping for a lack of derision, maybe some measure of distant understanding, and then so much of the nation just up and gives a big embrace. To a gay person — well, this one, anyway — it’s like spending years yearning for a Christmas puppy, and then the door opens and a whole litter stampedes out to swarm you.

Tim Brando generated quite a reaction with a series of tweets:

On the topic of Jason Collins I really don’t care and frankly why should anyone else.The HERO worship is out of bounds.I’m glad he is happy.

I used “choice” in reference to the timing. He is 34 at the end of his career and that in my opinion played a role on his coming out

I don’t apologize for being where I’m from or being a Christian, but anyone that plays the BIGOT card on me does not know my History.Sorry.

Dan Levy of Bleacher Report eloquently refutes Brando’s hero comment.

If the dictionary truly matters to Brando, he should go ahead and read it once in a while.

To the greater point, a hero is someone who inspires other people to be better, and to work hard to make this world we live in better every day.

Our lives are, in the grand scheme of history, short, and if someone decides to put the enormous weight of something like this on his shoulders to help other people get through a confusing, frightening or otherwise difficult time in their lives, that’s about as heroic as one can get.

The Boston Globe’s Dan Shaughnessy lauds Collins, but says he isn’t Jackie Robinson:

And it is not a big deal. It is not Jackie Robinson in 1947. Collins has come out at a time when few will challenge his right to his own sexual identity. There no doubt are folks who wish Collins kept this to himself, but woe is the ballplayer or commentator who will question anything about Collins’s sexual orientation.

We have evolved. There are gay men and women in just about every workplace. There have been gay ballplayers for more than a century. We just didn’t know about it.

Dave Zirin of The Nation in a tweet about Broussard:

If an ESPN commentator sees Christianity, Judaism, or Islam as evil, can they say so on air? Truly curious about where they draw line.

Jim Carlisle of the Ventura County Star had this view of Broussard:

To be frank about it, I think it took more courage for Chris Broussard to do what he did than it did for Jason Collins to do what he did.

Matt Yoder, the managing editor of Awful Announcing, didn’t post this view on his site. Instead, he did it in an extended tweet. When I asked why he went this route, he said he initially thought it was too personal. However, he said he still might post on AA.

I’m a Christian.  I stand with Jason Collins.

I feel the need to state this plainly because we live in a world where Christians have by and large failed the LGBT community and failed to follow through on the words and ministry of Christ.  As I read column after column today on Jason Collins coming out I felt more and more persuaded to say something so that the only Christian voice in this discussion isn’t one that condemns.

In the wake of Jason Collins coming out in Sports Illustrated, the Christian face of the reaction, at least in the sports world, is someone saying Collins should not be considered a Christian.  That is not something I can silently stand by and watch happen because it is not consistent with the ministry of Christ.

I read the piece written by Jason Collins in Sports Illustrated and rejoiced when I passed over these words because I hoped they could begin to tear down the wall too many of us Christians have built up blocking out the LGBT world:

James Andrew Miller, author of the ESPN book, did not think Monday was a good day for ESPN.

The hours @espn spent talking about #tebow today instead of #collins will live as dog years. Sad day for Bristol journalism.

Ken Fang of Fang’s Bites sums up a “bizarre day” with a timeline.

 

 

Posted in NBA

Maxed out: You won’t see much more of Heat’s winning streak

If it seems like the Miami Heat have been featured in virtually every NBA telecast, it is because they have. Unfortunately, LeBron’s national show is about to end, just as the Heat make their run at the Los Angeles Lakers’ 33-game winning streak.

According to Austin Karp of Street and Smith’s Business Daily, the Heat are nearly at their league maximums for national TV during the regular season.

Karp writes:

ESPN is only scheduled to have one more Heat game this season — next Wednesday’s matchup against the Bulls (potential win No. 27) — while ABC will air the April 14 Bulls-Heat game. ESPN and ABC will then be maxed out on appearances by the Heat, as the nets will have shown the team 10 and five times, respectively. TNT also only has one scheduled Heat game left before it hits its max of 10 broadcasts, the April 2 matchup against the Knicks (win No. 31).

This isn’t good. Just as the Heat streak really is getting hot, there’s only two national games on the schedule between now and the possible record-breaker? Definitely a letdown, there.

And what happens if the streak still is alive, and Heat are going for No. 34 against Milwaukee on April 9? Karp writes:

An ESPN spokesperson said the net would be able to show live cut-ins of the game on its “NBA Coast To Coast” whip-around show. However, it could not air the entire game. NBA TV could be the beneficiary of ESPN and TNT’s misfortune, as the April 9 game likely will be among those up for selection in the net’s weekly Fan Night pick.

If it breaks down that way, plenty of viewers will be searching to find the exact channel for NBA TV on their cable outlets.

Indeed, NBA TV definitely stands to be the big winner. Wonder what kind of rating the network received for airing the end of last night’s game?

 

 

Posted in NBA

Indy columnist shoots down Cowherd’s comments about town’s race issues with Pacers

My old New Trier West classmate, Bob Kravitz (at least one of us made good), came out swinging today at Colin Cowherd.

The ESPN radio host, who is prone to making blanket generalizations (see: hockey writers, New Orleans), said the Indiana Pacers don’t sell out their games because Indianapolis has race issues.

“You’re holding an organization to a standard that happens because of race,” Cowherd said. “There’s no other explanation why people don’t go to Pacers games.”

Kravitz, writing for the Indianapolis Star, took offense to the suggestion. He wrote:

This was in 1999-2000, back before Indianapolis became a racist town. The Indiana Pacers, playing their first season at Conseco Fieldhouse, sold out every game.

This was in 2004-05, the season of The Brawl, but still well before Indy turned virulently racist. The Pacers averaged 16,994 fans per game and had more than 13,000 full season ticket holders or season-ticket-holder equivalents.

This was in 2008, before Indy’s latent, simmering racism reared its ugly head. The city, and the state, helped elect Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States, the first time Indiana had gone for a Democratic presidential nominee in decades.

Kravitz pegged the attendance decline on the fallout from that ugly Detroit-Indiana brawl in 2004 followed by several years of bad basketball.

Here’s the big one: The NBA season-ticket-buying culture in Indianapolis is dead, at least for now. That has nothing to do with race. That has everything to do with six years of really bad basketball.

Here’s what Colin doesn’t quite get as he watches from afar in Bristol, Conn. After that 2004-05 season, pro basketball died here in Indianapolis. Ron Artest went crazy. Stephen Jackson, Jamaal Tinsley and others got in trouble. The team made the playoffs, but it was an unlikable team, and the Pacers were forced to trade off all those players in order to change the culture.

The result was five or six years of nice guys who couldn’t play a lick of basketball.

Then Kravitz posed this question:

Atlanta, another city with a pretty good team, doesn’t draw for the Hawks. And that is a much more populated city with a huge black population. Is it race there, too? Do they hate Zaza Pachulia?

Watch out, Atlanta. You could be next.

 

Posted in NBA