NFL Needs To Add Injury Analysts To Broadcast: Bobby Burack

Since 2010, Mike Pereira has served as a rules analyst for the NFL on Fox. The broadcast turns to Pereira, or his sidekick Dean Blandino, to provide instant analysis on questionable calls throughout the network's various matchups.

CBS, NBC, ESPN, and Amazon have followed suit in hiring a full-time in-game rules analyst to complement their broadcasts.

Rules analysts have been welcome additions to the broadcast, considering play-by-play and color commentators are only moderately versed in the NFL rule book. And befuddling calls are synonymous with the product.

But where broadcasts lack credibility is on the topic of injuries. That was evident on Sunday.

Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce suffered a non-contact injury in the second quarter of a nationally televised game against the Vikings.

The injury looked bad. Kelce's sideline reaction suggested it was. Immediately, Kelce's injury was the story across the NFL.

After halftime, CBS commentator Tony Romo speculated to over 20 million viewers and then called it "likely" that Kelce endured a "high-ankle sprain."

The dreaded high-ankle sprain, that is. Romo cited his past experiences and a random text message from his father-in-law as the basis for his diagnosis.

However, on social media, the oft-criticized Twitter Doctors, err X Doctors, provided a conflicting diagnosis:

Later, Ian Rapoport reported that Kelce "suffered a low-ankle sprain." Kelce eventually returned to the game.

The X Doctors were correct.

The difference between a low-ankle sprain and a high-ankle sprain is significant. It could be the difference between not missing a game and heading to injured reserve.

Yet the CBS broadcast signed off telling viewers Kelce's sprain was in the high ankle.

Consider that injuries shift point spreads. And not just injuries to quarterbacks.

According to USA Today, Travis Kelce is worth 1.83 points against the spread. The in-game line for the Chiefs and bets place could have shifted based on Romo's analysis that Kelce suffered a high-ankle sprain, which would have likely ruled him out for the remainder of the game and beyond.

That is not a knock on Romo, per se. He didn't know. The broadcast was forced to fixate on Kelce's injury.

That said, Romo's "diagnosis" demonstrates the need for networks to add a readily available injury analyst to the broadcast, right next to the rule analysts.

Like penalties, injuries can drown out the interest of a matchup. For reference, ESPN broadcasted Jets-Bills during Week 1 when Aaron Rodgers' was scattered back to the locker room.

Joe Buck and Troy Aikman weren't equipped to discuss the potential injuries Rodgers could have suffered. So, they had to instead repeat the line "We hate to speculate on injuries, but it looks bad."

It sounded as if ChatGPT had replaced Buck and Aikman.

During halftime, Adam Schefter cited text messages from "doctors around the industry" believing Rodgers tore his Achilles, which the team confirmed the following day.

If ESPN had an injury analyst on-air, viewers wouldn't have had to wait until halftime. Schefter wouldn't have had to cite "doctors around the industry." Fans could have heard directly from "doctors around the industry."

While such injury analyses are available on social media during the game, neither the NFL nor its league partners want to direct viewers to rely on a third-party source for information.

The X Doctors aren't always correct. We don't dispute that.

But it's rare for an NFL game to conclude without the addition of several injury subplots. The commentators and reporters are not qualified to analyze those injuries.

The networks ought to add analysts to the broadcast who are. They ought to find injury analyst equivalents to Mike Pereira.