Culture
Minnesota coach Cheryl Reeve says series ‘stolen’ after poor officiating in WNBA Finals loss to Liberty
NEW YORK — The 2024 WNBA Finals was one of the most memorable series in league history. Even as they were competing against each other, Minnesota Lynx and New York Liberty players recognized the beauty of their competition and what a great advertisement it was in a season that brought record viewership and enthusiasm to the league.
But the finals also brought a spotlight to the WNBA’s officiating. The performance of the referees didn’t rise to the standard of the players, and they compromised the league’s product as a result.
“It’s a shame that officiating had such a hand in a series like this,” Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve said after losing 67-62 in overtime to the Liberty. “Obviously there’s always going to be a team that’s going to be a little more disappointed than the other. I thought today was incredibly disappointing.”
“This (expletive) ain’t that hard,” she added. “Officiating, it’s not that hard.”
The conversation around a do-or-die game featuring two of the best players in the world in Breanna Stewart and Napheesa Collier should have centered on basketball. Instead, it was dominated by aggrieved reactions to the refereeing and suggestions of conspiracies benefitting the team in the bigger media market with the more popular star.
The Lynx’s ire was primarily focused on one call near the end of regulation, when Alanna Smith was whistled for a foul on Stewart with 5.2 seconds remaining on what appeared to be marginal contact. The decision held up after a challenge, though Stewart clearly traveled before the foul, and Reeve guaranteed that it would not have stood had a replay center outside of the building been tasked with reviewing the call.
Breanna Stewart just traveled worldwide in this play 😭😭😭#WNBAFinals pic.twitter.com/pK2YlNWRNV
— 𝑫𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒅🖤💫 (@DaviddLovesSosa) October 21, 2024
There were also multiple instances of Collier getting hit around the rim or wrapped up before receiving an entry pass that went uncalled. Halfway through overtime, Leonie Fiebich had her arm locked around Collier, leaving Collier unable to catch an entry pass from Natisha Hiedeman and resulting in a Lynx turnover instead of a foul on Fiebich. Collier attempted 18 field goals in the paint and didn’t attempt a single free throw. She had never before taken more than 11 field goals without getting to the foul line. She ultimately fouled out in overtime.
During regulation, before Minnesota had to foul to extend the game in the extra session, the foul disparity was 19-12 against the road team. Reeve went so far as to say the game was “stolen” from the Lynx.
Right before this video starts, Coach Cheryl Reeve says “This s— was stolen from us.” pic.twitter.com/8VanrfiXup
— Zena Keita (@itszenakeita) October 21, 2024
This isn’t the first time Reeve has cried foul in the postseason, She maintains eight years later that Minnesota lost another title in 2016 when the Sparks weren’t whistled for a shot-clock violation at the end of Game 5, and Nneka Ogwumike managed to get off a game-winning basket in a one-point game. But Reeve’s repeated complaints don’t mean she’s wrong; rather, she’s right that the WNBA has a long-standing problem with quality officiating.
Three games in this series ended with coaches complaining about the one-sided nature of the refereeing during their postgame comments. After Game 3, when Stewart took 10 free throws compared to 12 total for the Lynx, Reeve said: “The game is called differently for Phee than it is for Stewie for sure. You look at the same level of activity, and around-the-rim contact. For whatever reason, we have a hard time getting to the foul line in this series.”
New York coach Sandy Brondello responded in Game 4, when the Liberty lost the free-throw battle 20-9, saying, “I know Cheryl talked about it last time, but we got no calls today. So do I need to talk up in a press conference?”
“All we want is fair, OK. So if we are getting hit, that’s a foul,” Brondello added.
Before the finals, league commissioner Cathy Engelbert said the WNBA would undergo its usual audit of referees while still suggesting that the public focus on calls was a sign of passion rather than an indication that immediate improvement was necessary.
Nevertheless, the fact that the league’s longest-tenured coach would publicly rip the officials not once, but multiple times, on its biggest stage is a red flag.
Combine that with NBA stars like LeBron James and Damian Lillard chiming in on the issue on social media, with Lillard suggesting that the referees intentionally let New York back in the game in the second half, and the WNBA should have some introspection.
Refs called this game like they knew the assignment in the 2nd half boy. Great game .
— Damian Lillard (@Dame_Lillard) October 21, 2024
I’m sorry but that wasn’t a foul! Let the damn players dictate the outcome of a close battled tested game. 🤦🏾♂️
— LeBron James (@KingJames) October 21, 2024
There have never been more eyes on the league than at this moment, and the perception of fairness is imperative to keep fans engaged. They have to believe their team has a chance and not enter games against a media darling as an underdog.
Complaining about officials is a rite of passage for sports fans, so the fact that officiating took a heightened role isn’t out of the ordinary. However, there is a difference between fans feeling their team was cheated and the overall quality of referees not being up to par.
When three officials can’t see the ball went off of a player’s foot – which is what happened in Game 1 with Stewart – and are forced to call a jump ball as a result, that is a failure. When a player is wrapped up and can’t get to a pass because she is being held, and that play is whistled a turnover, that is on the officials.
There will always be judgment calls in basketball, and different referees will allow varied amounts of contact. That isn’t what happened in Game 5, and at other points in the finals, and it will leave a stain on what was otherwise an incredible series.
Brondello wouldn’t take the bait when asked about Reeve’s assertion that the series had been taken from Minnesota, choosing rather to highlight her team’s ability to power through adversity. And New York’s grit should be celebrated. To battle back from 12 points down on a night when their two stars couldn’t hit the ocean from the beach is a remarkable feat of endurance and persistence.
It doesn’t overshadow that the Lynx were battling against more than just the Liberty. That isn’t fair to either team. As it becomes a bigger player in the national sports media landscape, it’s incumbent that the league invests more in its officials so that they are ready for this spotlight and this responsibility. The players deserve better than what they got in Game 5.
(Photo of Cheryl Reeve: Elsa / Getty Images)
Culture
Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden
Let’s memorize a poem! Not because it’s good for us or because we think we should, but because it’s fun, a mental challenge with a solid aesthetic reward. You can amuse yourself, impress your friends and maybe discover that your way of thinking about the world — or even, as you’ll see, the universe — has shifted a bit.
Over the next five days, we’ll look closely at a great poem by one of our favorite poets, and we’ll have games, readings and lots of encouragement to help you learn it by heart. Some of you know how this works: Last year more Times readers than we could count memorized a jaunty 18-line recap of an all-night ferry ride. (If you missed that adventure, it’s not too late to embark. The ticket is still valid.)
This time, we’re training our telescopes on W.H. Auden’s “The More Loving One” — a clever, compact meditation on love, disappointment and the night sky.
Here’s the first of its four stanzas, read for us by Matthew McConaughey:
The More Loving One
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
But on earth indifference is the least
We have to dread from man or beast.
Matthew McConaughey, actor and poet
In four short lines we get a brisk, cynical tour of the universe: hell and the heavens, people and animals, coldness and cruelty. Commonplace observations — that the stars are distant; that life can be dangerous — are wound into a charming, provocative insight. The tone is conversational, mixing decorum and mild profanity in a manner that makes it a pleasure to keep reading.
Here’s Tracy K. Smith, a former U.S. poet laureate, with the second stanza:
How should we like it were stars to burn
With a passion for us we could not return?
If equal affection cannot be,
Let the more loving one be me.
Tracy K. Smith, poet
These lines abruptly shift the focus from astronomy to love, from the universal to the personal. Imagine how it would feel if the stars had massive, unrequited crushes on us! The speaker, couching his skepticism in a coy, hypothetical question, seems certain that we wouldn’t like this at all.
This certainty leads him to a remarkable confession, a moment of startling vulnerability. The poem’s title, “The More Loving One,” is restated with sweet, disarming frankness. Our friend is wearing his heart on his well-tailored sleeve.
The poem could end right there: two stanzas, point and counterpoint, about how we appreciate the stars in spite of their indifference because we would rather love than be loved.
But the third stanza takes it all back. Here’s Alison Bechdel reading it:
Admirer as I think I am
Of stars that do not give a damn,
I cannot, now I see them, say
I missed one terribly all day.
Alison Bechdel, graphic novelist
The speaker downgrades his foolish devotion to qualified admiration. No sooner has he established himself as “the more loving one” than he gives us — and perhaps himself — reason to doubt his ardor. He likes the stars fine, he guesses, but not so much as to think about them when they aren’t around.
The fourth and final stanza, read by Yiyun Li, takes this disenchantment even further:
Were all stars to disappear or die,
I should learn to look at an empty sky
And feel its total dark sublime,
Though this might take me a little time.
Yiyun Li, author
Wounded defiance gives way to a more rueful, resigned state of mind. If the universe were to snuff out its lights entirely, the speaker reckons he would find beauty in the void. A starless sky would make him just as happy.
Though perhaps, like so many spurned lovers before and after, he protests a little too much. Every fan of popular music knows that a song about how you don’t care that your baby left you is usually saying the opposite.
The last line puts a brave face on heartbreak.
So there you have it. In just 16 lines, this poem manages to be somber and funny, transparent and elusive. But there’s more to it than that. There is, for one thing, a voice — a thinking, feeling person behind those lines.
When he wrote “The More Loving One,” in the 1950s, Wystan Hugh Auden was among the most beloved writers in the English-speaking world. Before this week is over there will be more to say about Auden, but like most poets he would have preferred that we give our primary attention to the poem.
Its structure is straightforward and ingenious. Each of the four stanzas is virtually a poem unto itself — a complete thought expressed in one or two sentences tied up in a neat pair of couplets. Every quatrain is a concise, witty observation: what literary scholars call an epigram.
This makes the work of memorization seem less daunting. We can take “The More Loving One” one epigram at a time, marvelling at how the four add up to something stranger, deeper and more complex than might first appear.
So let’s go back to the beginning and try to memorize that insouciant, knowing first stanza. Below you’ll find a game we made to get you started. Give it a shot, and come back tomorrow for more!
Play a game to learn it by heart. Need more practice? Listen to Ada Limón, Matthew McConaughey, W.H. Auden and others recite our poem.
Question 1/6
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.
Your first task: Learn the first four lines!
Let’s start with the first couplet. Fill in the rhyming words.
Monday
Love, the cosmos and everything in between, all in 16 lines.
Tuesday (Available tomorrow)
What’s love got to do with it?
Wednesday (Available April 22)
How to write about love? Be a little heartsick (and the best poet of your time).
Thursday (Available April 23)
Are we alone in the universe? Does it matter?
Friday (Available April 24)
You did it! You’re a star.
Ready for another round? Try your hand at the 2025 Poetry Challenge.
Edited by Gregory Cowles, Alicia DeSantis and Nick Donofrio. Additional editing by Emily Eakin,
Joumana Khatib, Emma Lumeij and Miguel Salazar. Design and development by Umi Syam. Additional
game design by Eden Weingart. Video editing by Meg Felling. Photo editing by Erica Ackerberg.
Illustration art direction by Tala Safie.
Illustrations by Daniel Barreto.
Text and audio recording of “The More Loving One,” by W.H. Auden, copyright © by the Estate of
W.H. Auden. Reprinted by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd. Photograph accompanying Auden recording
from Imagno/Getty Images.
Culture
Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books
Literature
‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot
Who knew that there’s a major George Eliot novel that neither I nor any of my friends had ever heard of?
“Romola” was Eliot’s fourth novel, published between “The Mill on the Floss” (1860) and “Middlemarch” (1870-71). If my friends and I didn’t get this particular memo, and “Romola” is familiar to every Eliot fan but us, please skip the following.
“Romola” isn’t some fluky misfire better left unmentioned in light of Eliot’s greater work. It’s her only historical novel, set in Florence during the Italian Renaissance. It embraces big subjects like power, religion, art and social upheaval, but it’s not dry or overly intellectual. Its central character is a gifted, freethinking young woman named Romola, who enters a marriage so disastrous as to make Anna Karenina’s look relatively good.
It probably matters that many of Eliot’s other books have been adapted into movies or TV series, with actors like Hugh Dancy, Ben Kingsley, Emily Watson and Rufus Sewell. The BBC may be doing even more than we thought to keep classic literature alive. (In 1924, “Romola” was made into a silent movie starring Lillian Gish. It doesn’t seem to have made much difference.)
Anthony Trollope, among others, loved “Romola.” He did, however, warn Eliot against aiming over her readers’ heads, which may help explain its obscurity.
All I can say, really, is that it’s a mystery why some great books stay with us and others don’t.
‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips
This was an Oprah Book of the Week, which probably disqualifies it from B-side status, but it’s not nearly as well known as Phillips’s debut story collection, “Black Tickets” (1979), or her most recent novel, “Night Watch” (2023), which won her a long-overdue Pulitzer Prize.
Phillips has no parallel in her use of potent, stylized language to shine a light into the darkest of corners. In “Quiet Dell,” her only true-crime novel, she’s at the height of her powers, which are particularly apparent when she aims her language laser at horrific events that actually occurred. Her gift for transforming skeevy little lives into what I can only call “Blade Runner” mythology is consistently stunning.
Consider this passage from the opening chapter of “Quiet Dell”:
“Up high the bells are ringing for everyone alive. There are silver and gold and glass bells you can see through, and sleigh bells a hundred years old. My grandmother said there was a whisper for each one dead that year, and a feather drifting for each one waiting to be born.”
The book is full of language like that — and of complex, often chillingly perverse characters. It’s a dark, underrecognized beauty.
‘Solaris’ (1961) by Stanislaw Lem
You could argue that, in America, at least, the Polish writer Stanislaw Lem didn’t produce any A-side novels. You could just as easily argue that that makes all his novels both A-side and B-side.
It’s science fiction. All right?
I love science and speculative fiction, but I know a lot of literary types who take pride in their utter lack of interest in it. I always urge those people to read “Solaris,” which might change their opinions about a vast number of popular books they dismiss as trivial. As far as I know, no one has yet taken me up on that.
“Solaris” involves the crew of a space station continuing the study of an aquatic planet that has long defied analysis by the astrophysicists of Earth. Part of what sets the book apart from a lot of other science-fiction novels is Lem’s respect for enigma. He doesn’t offer contrived explanations in an attempt to seduce readers into suspending disbelief. The crew members start to experience … manifestations? … drawn from their lives and memories. If the planet has any intentions, however, they remain mysterious. All anyone can tell is that their desires and their fears, some of which are summoned from their subconsciousness, are being received and reflected back to them so vividly that it becomes difficult to tell the real from the projected. “Solaris” has the peculiar distinction of having been made into not one but two bad movies. Read the book instead.
‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders
If one of the most significant living American writers had become hypervisible with his 2017 novel, “Lincoln in the Bardo,” we’d go back and read his earlier work, wouldn’t we? Yes, and we may very well have already done so with the story collections “Tenth of December” (2013) and “Pastoralia” (2000). But what if we hadn’t yet read Saunders’s 2013 novella, “Fox 8,” about an unusually intelligent fox who, by listening to a family from outside their windows at night, has learned to understand, and write, in fox-English?: “One day, walking neer one of your Yuman houses, smelling all the interest with snout, I herd, from inside, the most amazing sound. Turns out, what that sound is, was: the Yuman voice, making werds. They sounded grate! They sounded like prety music! I listened to those music werds until the sun went down.”
Once Saunders became more visible to more of us, we’d want to read a book that ventures into the consciousness of a different species (novels tend to be about human beings), that maps the differences and the overlaps in human and animal consciousness, explores the effects of language on consciousness and is great fun.
We’d all have read it by now — right?
‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf
You could argue that Woolf didn’t have any B-sides, and yet it’s hard to deny that more people have read “Mrs. Dalloway” (1925) and “To the Lighthouse” (1927) than have read “The Voyage Out” (1915) or “Monday or Tuesday” (1921). Those, along with “Orlando” (1928) and “The Waves” (1931), are Woolf’s most prominent novels.
Four momentous novels is a considerable number for any writer, even a great one. That said, “Between the Acts,” her last novel, really should be considered the fifth of her significant books. The phrase “embarrassment of riches” comes to mind.
Five great novels by the same author is a lot for any reader to take on. Our reading time is finite. We won’t live long enough to read all the important books, no matter how old we get to be. I don’t expect many readers to be as devoted to Woolf as are the cohort of us who consider her to have been some sort of dark saint of literature and will snatch up any relic we can find. Fanatics like me will have read “Between the Acts” as well as “The Voyage Out,” “Monday or Tuesday” and “Flush” (1933), the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Speaking for myself, I don’t blame anyone who hasn’t gotten to those.
I merely want to add “Between the Acts” to the A-side, lest anyone who’s either new to Woolf or a tourist in Woolf-landia fail to rank it along with the other four contenders.
As briefly as possible: It focuses on an annual village pageant that attempts to convey all of English history in a single evening. The pageant itself interweaves subtly, brilliantly, with the lives of the villagers playing the parts.
It’s one of Woolf’s most lusciously lyrical novels. And it’s a crash course, of sorts, in her genius for conjuring worlds in which the molehill matters as much as the mountain, never mind their differences in size.
It’s also the most accessible of her greatest books. It could work for some as an entry point, in more or less the way William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” (1930) can be the starter book before you go on to “The Sound and the Fury” (1929) or “Absalom, Absalom!” (1936).
As noted, there’s too much for us to read. We do the best we can.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
Culture
6 Poems You Should Know by Heart
Literature
‘Prayer’ (1985) by Galway Kinnell
Whatever happens. Whatever
what is is is what
I want. Only that. But that.
“I typically say Kinnell’s words at the start of my day, as I’m pedaling a traffic-laden path to my office,” says Major Jackson, 57, the author of six books of poetry, including “Razzle Dazzle” (2023). “The poem encourages a calm acceptance of the day’s events but also wants us to embrace the misapprehension and oblivion of life, to avoid probing too deeply for answers to inscrutable questions. I admire what Kinnell does with only 14 words; the repetition of ‘what,’ ‘that’ and ‘is’ would seem to limit the poem’s sentiment but, paradoxically, the poem opens widely to contain all manner of human experience. The three ‘is’es in the middle line give it a symmetry that makes its message feel part of a natural order, and even more convincing. Thanks to the skillful punctuation, pauses and staccato rhythm, a tonal quality of interior reflection emerges. Much like a haiku, it continues after its last words, lingering like the last note played on a piano that slowly fades.”
“Just as I was entering young adulthood, probably slow to claim romantic feelings, a girlfriend copied out a poem by Pablo Neruda and slipped it into an envelope with red lipstick kisses all over it. In turn, I recited this poem. It took me the remainder of that winter to memorize its lines,” says Jackson. “The poem captures the pitch of longing that defines love at its most intense. The speaker in Shakespeare’s most famous sonnet believes the poem creates the beloved, ‘So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.’ (Sonnet 18). In Rilke’s expressive declarations of yearning, the beloved remains elusive. Wherever the speaker looks or travels, she marks his world by her absence. I find this deeply moving.”
“Clifton faced many obstacles, including cancer, a kidney transplant and the loss of her husband and two of her children. Through it all, she crafted a long career as a pre-eminent American poet,” says Jackson. “Her poem ‘won’t you celebrate with me’ is a war cry, an invitation to share in her victories against life’s persistent challenges. The poem is meaningful to all who have had to stare down death in a hospital or had to bereave the passing of close relations. But, even for those who have yet to mourn life’s vicissitudes, the poem is instructive in cultivating resilience and a persevering attitude. I keep coming back to the image of the speaker’s hands and the spirit of steadying oneself in the face of unspeakable storms. She asks in a perfectly attuned gorgeously metrical line, ‘what did i see to be except myself?’”
‘Sonnet 94’ (1609) by William Shakespeare
They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmovèd, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven’s graces
And husband nature’s riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die;
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity.
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
“It’s one of the moments of Western consciousness,” says Frederick Seidel, 90, the author of more than a dozen collections of poetry, including “So What” (2024). “Shakespeare knows and says what he knows.”
“It trombones magnificent, unbearable sorrow,” says Seidel.
“It’s smartass and bitter and bright,” says Seidel.
These interviews have been edited and condensed.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
-
Michigan4 minutes agoMichigan Democrats seek to mend old divides at contentious convention
-
Minnesota16 minutes agoUCLA baseball remains perfect in Big Ten by beating Minnesota
-
Mississippi22 minutes agoMississippi Lottery Mississippi Match 5, Cash 3 results for April 19, 2026
-
Missouri28 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Pick 3, Pick 4 winning numbers for April 19, 2026
-
Montana34 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Big Sky Bonus results for April 19, 2026
-
Nebraska40 minutes ago
Nebraska Lottery results: See winning numbers for Pick 3, Pick 5 on April 19, 2026
-
Nevada46 minutes agoArmed Robbery at the Tamarack Casino
-
New Hampshire52 minutes ago
NH Lottery Pick 3 Day, Pick 3 Evening winning numbers for April 19, 2026