"The Fantoo Girls - these are the girls you wish were sitting next to you at the sports bar on game day."

The Eagles had nothing to lose on Sunday night in Foxborough and it showed. Playing it safe was never an option. The Patriots consume that ill-advised strategy like kittens inhaling milk. The Eagles knew they had to take risks in order to upend the machine, so they pulled out a few tricks: flea-flicker, receiver option and an onside kick - sadly, no Swinging Gate - and played fearless football. As one would predict, many asked "Why now? Why not play like that all year?"

As Madonna would say: "It's human nature."

In order to face risk head-on, people need to feel as if they have nothing to lose: but the promise of big rewards isn't enough to make them take the chance. Those sitting at the top often over estimate how far they might fall and play it safe to stay in the catbird seat. For others who sit in more desperate seats, the risks become requirements if they are to ever move to the luxury boxes, but it's still hard to take the leap.

Can the Eagles keep up the emotion this Sunday when the Seahawks arrive?

Perhaps the Eagles never felt as if they had less to lose this season than on Sunday night. There's a certain freedom in being the underdog. Top that off by realizing all of the betting world, and I am just now learning how ridiculously large that world is, thought they could not even be a teeny bit competitive with the Patriots. You have not "humble pie," but "angry soufflé," a dish best served when the eater needs to have an extra edge and total focus. As a result, calling plays like the early onside kick become easier decisions to make for a coach. It's basically, "Heck – why not?" But not without some serious butterflies and a whole lot of finger-crossing, and not without feeling as if you literally have nothing to lose.

In the Dec. 3 edition of ESPN The Magazine, David Fleming ponders the question of risk taking in the NFL in an article titled, "Edge of Reason," that spotlights the Tennessee Titans and head coach Jeff Fisher. It's a compelling read chock full of statistics every NFL coach should peruse. Maybe it would quell the queasy stomach if coaches knew going for it on fourth down, when 2-5 yards are needed, succeeded 71 percent of the time through Week 10 of this season.

And the success rate of a surprise onside kick, one that happens prior to the fourth quarter, is 71 percent from 1997 through 2006. Seventy-one percent. Yes, for both scenarios. I'd dial that play up a lot more often knowing I would recover the ball basically three out of every four attempts, when at a minimum, it keeps the opponent's offense off the field for a series, especially in the case of the Patriots. Coach Fisher has tried both, over and over, and has succeeded more times than he has failed. In his words, "We push players beyond their limits and expectations every day. We ask them to take risks. Sometimes, as coaches, we have to remember to do that with our decisions, too."

So, why wouldn't a coach go for it on a fourth down when the statistics are clearly in favor of a positive outcome? Princeton professor Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002, says it is a condition called "loss aversion." The boiled-down version of his thesis is that people feel a loss twice as strongly as they do a gain of an equal amount. Meaning, losing hurts more than winning feels good.

Nobody wants to lose by being a risk-taker because that equates to being unmanageable or lacking in control. A risk-taker is seen as a loose cannon and there aren't many of those that make it as an NFL coach for long. It's human nature to think that if you make well-thought out, conservative decisions that are based on solid analysis, you will have an argument as to why you made a decision if you are ever required to state your case. If you just pulled it out of your tuckus, on the other hand, you may have a harder time justifying the move.

Alas, the bum is often good for things other than cushioning the tailbone. Reaching into the back pocket for a trick here and there or a gutsy call that most of your peers would be too timid to attempt is an exhilarating experience. It amps up the attitude on the field, conversion or not. It makes the opponent think twice, which is once too many in the fast-paced game of football. It manufactures swagger, and we all know what swagger can do. We witnessed it Sunday night. But most importantly it SUCCEEDS more than it fails.

The true enemy of this potent strategy, especially in the highly competitive world of professional sports, however, is the brain. How funny is that? Usually the heart is what screws us up, but even with heavy statistical evidence, the brain just can't roll the dice.

Treating sports like brain surgery is taking its toll. I hope coaches realize the beauty of calling the game like a game, and not like a war, where you wouldn't want to put your troops at risk unless it was absolutely necessary. Sunday night was the most fun I have had watching a football game in a long time and I think it's mainly because the pressure was off for the team. The top was down, the tie was loosened and the hair was flying.

I know every player and coach went there to win, but I would like to think they now appreciate the fact that playing it on the edge results in big gains. And there's no need to stop now. The Eagles aren't sitting on the top of anything, and there's still nothing to lose. So, statistics suggest brazen behavior is the right prescription. When I watched the post-game press conference, I saw a twinkle in Coach Reid's eyes that has been missing as of late. I think it was the effect of being devious within the boundaries of the laws of the game. I hope he remembers the feeling so he can overrule the loud voice of the conservative brain that reflexively shrieks every time he reaches for his, um, back pocket.

Random Thoughts From A Redhead

• Jim Johnson's defensive game plan was like a trip through a haunted house: you could hear the screams, but you had no idea the direction from which they were coming, until the hideous faces popped up right in front of you, and you lost your lunch.
• Monday Night Water Polo. Was it really necessary to play that game? Playing in inclement weather is part of the drill in the NFL, but you never see them play with a flat ball. Playing on Heinz Field was the equivalent of that. The game should have been postponed.
• Beyoncé cannot sell me any more stuff. I don't want to upgrade to DIRECTV because she shimmies in the commercial. I bet she can't even navigate TiVo. If Beyoncé is shilling your product, I'm not buying.
• Regardless of who is the quarterback for Sunday's game, I sure hope the team is still feeling feisty as they face The Grouper (Mike Holmgren) and his Seahawks. Since The Tuna is gone from the game, I feel it necessary to keep the fish population involved in the sport. It's my Piscean duty.

Robin McConaughy, Fantoo General Manager Carol and Robin are hosts of the podcast Fantoo Girls - Where the Girls Talk Sports, a national sports-talk podcast, which won the distinction of 'Best Sports Podcast' in the 2006 People's Choice Podcast Awards. They also host a show on Sirius Sports Central between 1-3 PM on Fridays on Channel 123. You can learn more about the girls and get a sneek peak at their clothing line at Fantoo.com.     Carol Doroba, Fantoo Head Coach The company they co-founded, Fantoo, Inc., was created as a lifestyle brand for the sports fan. In addition to web and radio broadcasting efforts Carol and Robin are creating TV and Broadband content for sports fans everywhere which focuses on education, entertainment and, of course, opinion. Their weekly column on PhiladelphiaEagles.com allows a forum for the female fans to voice their opinions.

Spare Me The Spread
November 28, 2007
By Robin McConaughy

Due to another Patriots victory, Don Shula is going to be waiting a little longer to pop open that champagne. He might be waiting forever. But the bubbly was certainly flowing for the bookies this weekend: they finally made some decent money on the Patriots spread.

When the line was set at 17 for the Eagles-Patriots game, bettors jumped all over it. And in the true nature of supply and demand, the more money people put down on the Patriots, the higher the line went. The Pats had a seemingly unending vat of points to give - and bettors to wager on them. Officially, the line came to rest at 23.5, but I heard 24 and 25 before the opening drive.

But didn't you know this would end badly for someone? Wasn't there that feeling in your gut, after Tom Brady went on the radio in the comfort of the WEEI radio studios and said ""We're not trying to win 42-28 ... we're trying to kill teams, to blow them out if we can"" that Rome was going to start crumbling?

And was there ever a game when the discussion of the spread was just as significant as the matchup itself? When gambling sticks its nose so far into the makeup of a particular game, the whole thing begins to reek.

After the steroids, crooked refs, throwing games for lottery ping pong balls and various other blemishes on our favorite professional sports - betting leaves me cold. And suspicious. It just seems too easy for the seductive mountains of money to work their way into the collective thinking about how the NFL should be run, and consumed.

The Eagles put the crunch on the Pats

Putting the volumes of cash aside for a second, take a look at how we as a collective fan base experience the NFL:

A whole week is spent looking at lines and seeing which team will give what points based on the assessments of an experienced oddsmaker - presumably in Vegas. And that's just if you're checking out spreads. If you're in a fantasy league, then there's a whole new set of information on which you need to brush up. Depending on your taste there are still other variables to consider as you place prop bets on different miniscule aspects of the game - like the coin toss and so on.

The nerd factor rises to a fever pitch right up to the weekend (but don't forget about Thursday, if you are lucky enough to be graced with the NFL Network), when we can all sit down and watch the games. But you can't watch just one. All of the sudden, ""taking in some football"" means having a split-screen TV or a highly dexterous channel-changing hand so you can keep track of the action in every corner of the league. You simply can't miss your pick, Devin Hester on the kickoff, but you also don't want to lose a second of the Cowboys-Packers matchup. Plus, you might have a side bet with someone in the office on which Manning will throw more interceptions.

But who the heck is your team? The one you root for?

Who cares?! The spread is covered and you bet against them anyway.

All this betting business highlights exactly why throwing good cash on a game with a ridiculous spread, or any spread, is bad for the sport - the team effort and the final outcome become meaningless.

This brings me to the "mountains of cash." When you consider, according to a recent article in USA TODAY that "These days, billions of dollars are wagered on NFL games by 40 Million people each week," the money involved is no small sum. It's more like a multi-billion-pound gorilla in the casino.

If this figure is true - that EACH WEEK billions of dollars are being wagered - then the NFL gambling business is bigger than the NFL itself. Way bigger. And with that kind of money being thrown around, legally and illegally - is everyone acting above board? Is there any scenario at all in which the sport could be compromised?

It gets you thinking.

Fooling with the injury report seems junior varsity when you ponder bigger questions like this: how much money and influence would it take to convince a coach, making about $5 million a year, to take a knee to preserve the spread? Maybe he couldn't get bought with all the cash in the world. But then again ...

The optimist in me believes that coaches (or referees or players) on the take could never happen in today's game. There is too much integrity in the old boys' network to even think of taking a payday to alter an outcome. But the cynic in me says that it has happened before, and it will again. And I still do not understand why the NFL destroyed the Patriots' "Spy Gate" tapes without any disclosure as to what was on them. Why was that swept under the rug amidst the "higher standards for coaches" crackdown that was simultaneously taking place using the Cowboys' assistant coach, Wade Wilson as the fall guy?

Taking a banned substance to relieve symptoms of diabetes is one thing. Doing something that brings on close to $1 million in fines and the loss of a top draft pick is quite another. And the lack of information, again, just gets you wondering why.

For my part - I go old school. It's my team or no team. It's a win or a loss. There is no in-between. So, I may be sending my cousin soft Philly pretzels because the Eagles lost and Patriots won. But the chowder I would have been eating had I wagered on the spread would have tasted a little sour.

When my team wins they win on the field, as a unit - not in a dark, cavernous sports betting room of a casino.