Oh, I know what you mean. I once saw a game where the kickoff return runner broke his leg. It was a real bad break, too. I’m confident in saying that because the leg bone actually stuck out from his leg (it was yellow).
I went over to offer him some condolences. He said, “Oh, don’t worry about me. As soon as I get to the hospital, they’re gonna give me a shot of morphine. A similar thing happened to me once before and after fifteen minutes I told them that I was still in a lot of pain and they gave me a second shot. Two shots of morphine. I was flying for the rest of the day and all through the night”.
Apparently, he really loved morphine. I have often wondered if he wouldn’t have been a lot better off getting some in another way. Seems like a huge amount of trouble. All the pain of the broken leg plus months of recovery from the broken leg. And the worst part is that he seemed to love morphine so much that I figured he was destined to wind up a morphine addict or, even worse - a Heroin addict.
That must be a pretty bad exchange. 24 hours of feeling good followed by a lifetime of opiate addiction? Does not seem like a good trade to me. Seemed like a terrible trade.
The only other instance where a team participated in a Super Bowl in its home territory was 1980, when the game was played at the Rose Bowl and featured the Los Angeles Rams. However, to date, no team has ever played in a Super Bowl in its home stadium.
Viewership didn’t drop, but rose…preliminary figures are saying last night’s game was the most watched Super Bowl in history. So, not evidence at all for the claim that viewers prefer indoor Super Bowls.
I’m also told that there were few if any empty seats at the game itself, and that ticket sales on the secondary market were quite robust (meaning not only “going for a hell of a lot more than I can pay” but “going for a hell of a lot more than face value”).