The debate has been raging since the NFL moved the Sunday Night game to tonight in Philadelphia, because of a blizzard that was scheduled to hit with full force on Sunday. Did the NFL and the home team Eagles do the right thing? Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania complained publicly yesterday, saying that “this is part of the wussification of America.” 

I think they should have played this game on Sunday night, and I agree with some of Rendell’s sentiments (those that deal with playing football in the elements and memorable games).  I can comfortably say this as someone who would have watched the game on TV from a thousand miles away and didn’t have to deal with getting there.  I’m not going to say that it represents anything larger about society, though.  I’m also glad I wasn’t one of the decision makers responsible for making this call at the time it had to be made.

Let’s ask this question: are there any circumstances under which a game should be moved?  The answer is yes, right?  We can’t believe that the game must always go on because it’s football, and football is played in any conditions.

We’ve seen it with external issues that affected a stadium, like the Metrodome last week, or the wildfires in Southern California a few years ago.  That wasn’t the case here, as the game could have been played in bad weather conditions.  Surely, though, the weather conditions can be so bad that we have to move a game, even if this wasn’t it.  They moved the game between Kansas City and Miami back in 2005 up to a Friday because of a projected hurricane that was going to hit Miami by Sunday.

As far as how things used to be, well, this article mentions that the last football game moved to a Tuesday, back in 1946 when people were tougher, was moved because of too much rain in the Boston area.  When I search for pre-game articles of that 1948 Championship Game in Philadelphia between the Eagles and Cardinals, played in blizzard with over 7 inches of snow falling during the game, I don’t find much reference to just how severe the weather was going to be, with most pre-game accounts not mentioning it at all, or in passing (this one, for example, says the weatherman is calling for rain or snow or a mix of both).  I do find plenty of post-game accounts of the conditions.  Maybe we are bigger wusses today, or maybe they were more blissfully unaware in 1948, and didn’t have alarmist weathermen who predicted Snowmageddon to hit.

We frequently talk about decision making and evaluating coaching decisions based on information available at the time.  The same is true here, as the NFL was being given information by weather services about the conditions on Sunday night.  They erred on the side of caution.  I probably would have played it, but it just so happened that while the conditions were bad and would have limited the crowd, the game could have been played.  The weather services were predicting levels that would have been worse than that Championship Game back in 1948, and the actual results were not as bad as that game.  Basically, what I’m saying is, fall back on that oldest of hobbies, blame the weatherman and the culture of over-predicting bad weather.

As for the game, the Eagles need to win to keep the hopes for a first round bye alive, and they need to avoid being the three seed at all costs.  They get Joe Webb, who had less pocket presence than a bikini last week, and unless he improves dramatically in one week, can be easily be moved off the play by flashing pressure in his line of vision.  The Vikings have dealt with a lot over the last three weeks, with a game in Detroit, then outdoors in Minnesota.  The defense tackled poorly in the cold, as dome teams are wont to do.  I would be shocked if the Eagles kept them around in this game.

[photo via Getty]