SI.com’s NBA writers had an interesting discussion about Gregg Popovich during a roundtable on the site.

They didn’t discuss his coaching abilities, which are considerable. Instead, they focused on his complete disdain for the in-game interview with sideline reporters.

The consensus seems to be that “Pop” needs to get with the program.

From Lee Jenkins:

The man makes $6 million a year, in part because ESPN and Turner pay the NBA $7.5 billion to broadcast its games. Popovich clearly believes the in-game interviews are intrusive and unnecessary, and maybe he is right. But the TV networks, who foot so many of the teams’ bills, have reason to think different. They’re not asking for a fireside chat. It’s 30 seconds with Doris Burke, a consummate pro who usually asks thoughtful questions, and deserves professional answers. As someone who is privileged enough to have interviewed Popovich away from cameras, he can be incredibly engaging and insightful. It’s a shame we can’t see that side all the time. We’d learn a lot.

Richard Deitsch:

The sideline reporters who interview him also know the gag. Trust me, they have good relationships with Popovich away from the camera.But you also wish Popovich would drop the Charlie Bronson act every once in awhile because he’s very bright guy who could provide the kind or thoughtful and in-depth analysis that Joe Maddon does in baseball. The sideline stuff doesn’t bother me —like I said, I dig the non-conformist streak —  but his act in the press room does. He’s too often dismissive of questioners and he can come off like an ass. He’s too smart a guy to do that, even if some of the questions he gets are awfully constructed.

Chris Ballard makes the case that Popovich is right and that the in-game interview should be eliminated.

Though you could also go with “painful” or “awkward”. I get that networks are trying to provide viewers with as much perspective as possible, but the entire concept of an in-game interview with a head coach is flawed. Why would the coach provide an honest answer? Why would he divulge anything of note? Worse, everyone knows it’s a big charade — the viewers, the hapless interviewer, the annoyed-looking coach. Popovich’s performance may be grating to some but it doesn’t bother me. In fact, he may be accomplishing the opposite of what he hopes to accomplish, as his angry/laconic/pissed interviews are unfailingly entertaining in a Larry David kind of way, thus making them the lone argument for why the in-game interview should be kept.