A question struck me while watching Leslie Visser on CBS during the Patriots-Lions on Saturday night (and no, it had nothing to do with Bruce Jenner):

In 2011, is there any value to having a sideline reporter as part of an NFL broadcast?

When was the last time you learned something during one of the segments with a sideline reporter during an NFL game? When Jim Nantz or Al Michaels or whoever the play-by-play guy is throws it down to the sideline we get either A) a taped fluff piece, B) an injury "update" -- which almost without fail means we are being told that Player X has left the game and his return is unknown, and C) a 30-second recap of a 15-second attempt to catch a coach (who correctly has no interest in revealing anything of note) running to the locker room at the end of the first half. 

Sort-of aside: I think there is value in a courtside reporter. Still works in NBA games -- it is actually a benefit to the broadcast to have a competent hand near the bench, particularly in the last couple of minutes. Look, you might think Greg Dickerson is in the bag for the Celtics -- and I might agree with you -- but watch the final minute of Game 1 of Celtics-Knicks and tell me that broadcast wasn't enchained by the presence of Dickerson, who told you the Celtics were going to run a play for Ray Allen seconds before Allen hit the game-winning 3-pointer. Stuff like that works in basketball and only basketball.

Why doesn't that kind of scenario happen in the NFL (or MLB)? There isn't anything even approaching that level of access. There's a distance between the sideline reporter and coaches that makes you wonder why it is that they are in fact even on the sidelines (I suppose we can chalk it up to window dressing -- if they are on the sideline they must be on the inside, right?)

This isn't a knock on Visser (an absolute pioneer in the field as well as an integral part of the Globe during the salad days of the 1970's) or Pam Oliver or Chris Myers or any of the sideline crew. I don't doubt that these are all hard-working folks that are fully competent on all things NFL. It's not their fault that the job is essentially meaningless. 

One argument I hear for the value of a sideline reporter is he or she is able to articulate the "mood" of a team to the people at home. I don't (or at least haven't) seen it. Think about the signature sideline moment for the Patriots in 2010: Brady going full apes--t on his teammates in Pittsburgh. Why did that moment resonate? Because the cameras caught it. If they had missed it -- as they almost certainly do during the course of a year, that kind of outburst isn't exactly rare -- you would have heard nothing about it from Andrea Kramer (that was a Sunday night game.) 

Do we know what Brady said to any of those guys? Nope. Do we know what any of those guys said to Brady? Nope. Why? Again, because the NFL doesn't let a sideline reporter get close enough to actually learn anything. So Andrea Kramer -- again, this isn't a comment on her journalistic acumen -- is stuck telling us that Tom Brady yelled at his teammates (with no specifics) while we are watching Tom Brady yelling at his teammates. Swell.

Another 2010 Patriots moment that helped me arrive at the insignificance of the sideline reporter was in the loss to the Browns. Stephen Gostkowski went down with what turned out to be a season-ending thigh injury in the first half. With just under seven minutes left in the game, Wes Welker came in for Gostkowski and kicked an extra point. Until the Patriots were moving on the TD drive before the kick, no one on CBS -- not the play-by-play guy, analyst or sideline reporter -- mentioned that Welker could be thrown in as a kicker. Here's where we come to the problem: Anyone following any of the Patriots beat writers on Twitter already knew that Welker had practiced some kicking at halftime. 

I understand that not everyone has a computer in front of them during games (though I'll bet all in the money in my pockets against all the money in yours that it's a lot more than it was five years ago and five years from now it'll be close to commonplace, especially when you throw in the Fantasy Factor) but if you do you already know that you'll learn more from the beat guys on Twitter in one game than you will learn from a sideline reporter in a season. Relevant information combined with an authentic knowledge of the team (I'm not saying that every beat reporter is terrific, but we know who is and who isn't and follow them on Twitter accordingly) beats the "Fly in on a Thursday and try really hard to make it look like you haven't spent the last 48 hours cramming to learn about the teams" crowd.

(And why would a coach tell a reporter anything -- on the record -- even close to important? I sure wouldn't. Zero benefit. Belichick does it the right way -- his only loyalty should be to the Patriots, not to CBS or Fox or NBC or any beat writer. Ever notice how fans never get angry at Belichick for the way he handles the media? The bitching and moaning comes only from the reporters, though most of them have given up that fight.)

In a big-picture sense, does it really matter? What are we talking about, three or four minutes of a 200-minute production? And there's also this reality: It doesn't hurt to stick a pretty face in the mix (which is also OK, I get that it's entertainment, we aren't talking about covering Qaddafi here. I mean, I think Heidi Watney is very good at what she does, but if she looked like Candy Crowley she wouldn't be an on-air talent for NESN.) 

The sideline reporter isn't going away.

But that doesn't make the job relevant.