Maybe Brian Kelly did interview with the Eagles last night to leverage a raise and contract extension from Notre Dame.

Pete Thamel of Sports Illustrated tweeted last night that's what a Notre Dame source told him.

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk noted that, literally, minutes after the interview, FOX's Jay Glazer, ESPN's Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen, the Inquirer's Jeff McLane and's Reuben Frank were all spoon-fed the scoop.

If true, it would follow the model of Chip Kelly and Bill O'Brien, both of whom finagled contractual bumps after flirting with Jeffrey Lurie and Howie Roseman.

There's clearly an incentive for what Kelly may have done. Even if he is due for a raise after taking the Irish to their first national championship game since 1988, and first double-digit and BCS Bowl since 2006, why not try to go after more money?

Even if that's how this turns out, it wouldn't make the Eagles "losers."

They knew the circumstances, that Kelly recently said:

"Leaving (Notre Dame) is not an option. I don't even think about it."

They also knew they owed it to themselves, the integrity of their search, the fans to see whether they could capitalize on the off-chance that he would, assuming it is, in fact, an "off-chance," and that Kelly's not ready to bail on Notre Dame the same way he did Cincinnati in search of something greater.

They also didn't make sacrifices. Chip Kelly and O'Brien, like Brian Kelly, college coaches whose seasons were already over and could be hired on the spot, didn't preclude interviews with Denver's Mike McCoy or Seattle's Gus Bradley.

It didn't risk losing them, either; NFL assistants can't be hired until their teams are out of the NFL playoffs anyway.

So what, exactly, was lost here? No losses, no losers.

If anything, there was only potential for gain.

So, why shouldn't the Eagles have interviewed Kelly?