■ Not sure what Billy Gillispie is trying to prove with his behavior in those halftime interviews with ESPN's Jeannine Edwards, but truth is the Kentucky coach comes off as something of a jerk, which doesn't do anybody any good.

 

It's all so unnecessary, too. All Billy G. has to do is give a couple of clichés and continue on to the locker room. But instead of scolding Edwards for her question as he did at Mississippi, Gillispie claimed Tuesday he didn't hear the question, then told Edwards he didn't know where she got the Nick Calathes "vision" question when it was he the day before who complimented Calathes' "great vision."

 

It's a tired act, one bordering on sexism, and Gillispie needs to retire it. It's a poor reflection on him and the school he represents. If he doesn't want to do those interviews, there are plenty of coaches out there who would be happy to take his paycheck — and talk to ESPN.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

To paraphrase an old C.M. Newton saying, "Come on, Billy, you're better than that."

 

■ So with a four-way tie in the East, which

I totally agree with Clay. Even in BCG doesn't like doing the interviews, he needs to drop a few generic answers and move on. A big portion of his $$$ is related to media obligations.

 

He is just being a jerk, it is childish and unprofessional. Edwards is doing her job. It would be like one of BCG's players talking to him like that... that wouldn't go over too great.

I totally agree. Billy Clyde needs to be jerked on the carpet by UK officials and given a good scolding about his behavior. I guarantee if one of his players acted the way he does in an interview Billy would have him running steps the next day. His halftime interviews are embarrassing.

So for all these media people like John Clay its okay to write an article or do an interview and criticize Gillispie, but its not okay for Gillispie to be critical of a member of the media? Could Gillispie handle the situation better? Sure, but hes a coach going in at halftime and obviously not very happy either time. As long as the team plays well and he doesn't turn into Bobby Knight I don't see a problem.

I agree with what you guys have said.

If he doesn't want to do it, then he should do what Billy Donovan did, ... let his head assistant talk to her at halftime. It definitely takes away from the Texas charm he brought with him and is not a good representation of UK.

If he doesn't want to do it, then he should do what Billy Donovan did, ... let his head assistant talk to her at halftime. It definitely takes away from the Texas charm he brought with him and is not a good representation of UK.

 

:thumb:

I'll say this, although it does make Billy G come off like a jerk, the game is more important than the interviews.

So for all these media people like John Clay its okay to write an article or do an interview and criticize Gillispie, but its not okay for Gillispie to be critical of a member of the media? Could Gillispie handle the situation better? Sure, but hes a coach going in at halftime and obviously not very happy either time. As long as the team plays well and he doesn't turn into Bobby Knight I don't see a problem.

 

I am with you as well LMB...and the majority of the time those interviewers are asking questions that are completely irrelevent and just dumb. Save the interviews for after the game, IMO.

I could care less, he can be a jerk during an interview if he wants to as long as the CATS win.

I am with you as well LMB...and the majority of the time those interviewers are asking questions that are completely irrelevent and just dumb. Save the interviews for after the game, IMO.

 

The difference is in this case that both questions were relevant. I agree that I do not like speaking to the press during the game, but that is what he has signed up for. Do it with a little class, you are only making yourself look stupid.

I am with you as well LMB...and the majority of the time those interviewers are asking questions that are completely irrelevent and just dumb. Save the interviews for after the game, IMO.

 

Exactly, only questions that I think should be asked going into at the half are "what did you see in the first half that your team did well?", and "what do you look to improve on during the second half?" Only exceptions to that which come to mind would be if there was an injury or something out of the ordinary in the first half. Anything else can wait til after the game.

Why do there have to be interviews during the game regardless? They are totally unneccessary and unneeded. Let the players and coaches focus on the task at hand and not bother them with some rather pointless questions.

Why do there have to be interviews during the game regardless? They are totally unneccessary and unneeded. Let the players and coaches focus on the task at hand and not bother them with some rather pointless questions.

 

:thumb:

 

I agree, it is unnecessary. Why doesn't the coach's association talk with ESPN/Media about it and come to some sort of agreement.

I havent been following his interviews very closely. Is it just the ESPN girl that he is acting that way or are there other examples? I really couldnt figure out what made him mad in the last interview at the half of the Florida game!