Allen: What does ego have to do with it?

Can someone please explain to me what in the world ego had to do with Bill Belichick's decision to go for it on fourth and two Sunday night?

Anyone ... Bueller ... anyone?

This week we've read and heard plenty of potshots at the Patriots head coach. Most of those include one or more of the following words. "Ego", "Hubris" or "Arrogant." The commonly held opinion in the media is that these supposed traits in Belichick were what led him to take the risky gamble of trying to make a first down rather than punting the ball away. As we know, the move didn't work. Or maybe it did - it sure seemed like the ball was in Faulk's hands past that 30-yard line - but it wasn't spotted that way. The Colts got the ball back, then a few plays later, were in the end zone.

The gamble didn't work, even if stat-man after stat-man this week has shown pretty conclusively that it was a gamble well worth taking.

But what does Belichick's ego have to do with anything? It's an easy shot to toss into a column or soundbite, but what are you really saying when you make that connection?

"Ego" is defined as "exaggerated sense of self-importance." OK. So how does Belichick making that decision show any exaggerated sense of self-importance? How? "Hubris" is "overbearing pride or presumption." Was Belichick presuming that his offense would be able to make a two yard gain? Was it overbearing of him to think that they could do that? This offense had been moving the ball up and down the field all night on the Colts. He didn't assume his team would make the needed yardage, but was confident in their ability to do so. If you're confident in your team - who consist of other people besides yourself - just how does that reflect exaggerated self-importance? How about "Arrogant?" Was the decision by Belichick "making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming?" Was Belichick claiming that his superior importance should allow his team to get the needed first down? I don't think so.

So why have the self-important types in the media rushed to label Belichick in this manner? The usual reasons - they're just itching for a reason to bash him. It's no secret, I've talked about it ad naseum, Belichick doesn't fill their notebooks with snappy quotes, makes them feel stupid, so they're going to take ever opportunity they can to get their shots in.

You might recall that Belichick has done this once already this season. Against the Atlanta Falcons, the Patriots were even further back ion the field - the 24-yard line, in the third quarter when Belichick decided to go for it on fourth down. That play was successful. No forests were killed after that one by the number of papers being filled with wailing and moaning over Belichick's out-of-control ego. It was mentioned here and there, but no one said that it was an example of "hubris" by the Patriots coach. No one said he was "arrogant" for making that play call. Why?

Because the play was successful, the hue and cry was absent. In fact, because the play worked out, the call in that Falcons game was praised as "gutsy."

Apparently there is a very thin line separating "Ego", "Hubris" and "Arrogant" from "Gutsy."

The first down line, to be exact.

Bruce Allen is the creator of Boston Sports Media Watch, which has recently been recognized by SI.com as one of the best non-corporate sports web site's on the Internet