Talk:Fifth Down Game (1990)

McCartney Remorseful? Closure came in the summer of 1998?

'Closure came in the summer of 1998' is the opinion of the dickhead who wrote this article and should be removed. There is no evidence to suggest that this occured at the referenced event. I also think my edit removing this was reversed by MECU, who happens to be from Colorado and probably has an agenda.

The article sites the SI-CNN source in which "McCartney said he's "truly remorseful,"..." but the source doesn't clarify why he is remorseful. In the wiki article it is included as if to indicate that he is remorseful of his 'un-christian' behavoir, but that's a stretch. The SI-CNN article really just says he regrets that it happened, not his actions. I also contend that the "Closure came in the summer of 1998..." comment is purely POV. Unless I see it comming for a Mizzou source, I don't buy it. Personally, I think the hypocrite (McCartney) can burn in hell.

The article cited is from 1998. This implies closure. I don't think it suggest he is regretful of his 'un-Christian behavior,' just that he didn't at least offer to forfeit the game. But that should be left to the reader, which I think the article does. MECU≈talk 04:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

:I am aware that the article is from 1998. But it says nothing of closure, only remorse. Closure would imply that Mizzou and Mizzou fans have put it to rest. This is hardly the case. And as far as the comment about 'un-Christian behavior' goes, his so-called remorse was tied to the Promise Keepers. I would suggest that it is fair to assume that the author of the wiki article intended an implied link between his christianity and remorse. And as for your speculation about forfeiting the game, it is just that, speculation. The SI-CNN article makes no reference to this, implied or otherwise.

Living A Lie Remark Needs Removed

I submit that the 'living a lie' remark by Lou Holtz needs removed; it is INACCURATE and WRONG. I realize that the source cites Tim Layden of CNNSI - but Layden has his chronology wrong.

Colorado and Notre Dame met in BOTH the 1990 and 1991 Orange Bowls. The 1990 bowl followed the 1989 season, the year when Colorado's quarterback Sal Aunese died of stomach cancer and they used his demise to propel themselves to an unbeaten season and a number one ranking entering the Orange Bowl. Holtz made his comments before the FIRST game - NOT THE GAME that is referenced in this article. I submit the following evidence that Holtz said it before the 1990 game and not the 1991 game.

1) I remember it (admittedly not evidential at all)

2) Bill McCartney said it in his book "From Ashes To Glory" in the chapter entitled "1990 Orange Bowl."

3) I have the tapes of BOTH games with pre-game shows. It was featured on the 1990 game and not the 1991 game.

4) This Irish website http://www.blueandgold.com/content/?aid=1465&pageID=1 points out it was in 1989. Note carefully where it says: Later that year, Holtz’s private “living a lie” speech to the team about Colorado’s football program would be aired by a Colorado station. (note: the year referenced in the previous paragraph talking about Notre Dame's win in the 1990 Orange Bowl is 1989 - not 1990.

Please remove the comment; the original article by Layden is simply wrong on the facts

199.184.196.144 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Maestroh199.184.196.144 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Because your referenced a source I could check (even if it's not perfectly clear, the page is essentially about the 1989 season) and McCartney's book (which I can't easily check, but could) and the reference I found was written years afterwards. It does make it more poetic that he would remark that about Colorado 90-91 season. I just don't understand why he would make the comment about the 89-90 season? What lie was Colorado living then? That they were #1 or could beat Notre Dame? That's my only (weak) argument against. --MECU≈talk 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In 1989, Colorado's quarterback, Sal Aunese, was diagnosed with stomach cancer in the spring. In July, it was revealed that he was the father of Coach McCartney's only daughter's out of wedlock son. In September, Aunese died after becoming a born again Christian. Colorado used the national story with that and had an emotional year where everyone was pulling for the underdog.

My suspicion is that Holtz - who is a rather clever motivational speaker - was trying to get his players to not get intimidated by the CU emotion. I also think it was wrong (as did Holtz and McCartney as well) for a mic to pick up a coach's private comments to his players.

It later came out that James Ryle, a preacher who is now affiliated with Promise Keepers and later McCartney's pastor, had given a prophecy that the Buffaloes would have a 'golden season.' After winning their opening game, McCartney accepted the prophecy as valid when the next day's newspaper said Colorado had opened a 'golden season.' Of course, it might also be because that was CU's 100th year of football, I don't know.

199.91.36.254 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Maestroh

Merge

Basically, this article and 1990 Colorado-Missouri football game have the same content, and describe the same situation. --OntarioQuizzer 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe we need an article entitled "Missouri Getting Screwed By Big VIII/Big XII Referees" after the Nebraska game in '97.... Bsd987 01:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only imagine the explosion of articles with similar titles. There seems to be a consenus to merge. I'll go ahead and do that. Kerowyn 00:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Pared down

I have tried to trim this article down by removing some of the most opinionated comments. I have also added some remarks to clarify the issues for those not familiar with American football. Still need to add some links though.

sorry, forgot to sign that last remark.

Paul 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now?

Hello again. I believe this article is now up to snuff. What do you think?

Paul 19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This article has a number of errors and NPOV comments. 1) . But after the referee had blown his whistle, he took his eyes off Johnson to look over at the crowd on the side of the field. The Missouri defender who had tackled Johnson got up to celebrate and Johnson took that opportunity to get up just enough to put the ball over the end zone. The referee on the field looked back to see the ball over the goal line and called it a touchdown.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!!!

I have this game on tape, and I concede that whether or not Johnson made it over the line before he went down is questionable. However, the official came in signaling touchdown almost immediately. If this particular report is correct, I'd like to see a footnoted verification from a non-Missouri source.

2) The Orange Bowl victory over Notre Dame was considered very controversial as well (Notre Dame Coach Lou Holtz had told his team in a pregame speech that Colorado was "living a lie"),

THIS IS INCORRECT.

Lou Holtz DID say that Colorado had been living a lie, but he said it before the 1990 Orange Bowl that followed the 1989 unbeaten season NOT the 1991 Orange Bowl following Fifth Down. Holtz made his remarks in December 1989 at a practice - the Fifth Down did not occur until 10/6/1990. It should be removed.

Maestroh

Spiking the ball

This article fails to mention that Johnson's spike of the ball on 4th down was almost certainly a direct consequence of the officials' mistake two downs earlier. One can only assume that any QB with half a brain would not be likely to literally throw away his team's final shot at victory. Johnson spiked the ball because the marker said it was third down, and he believed that he would have one more play after the spike. If the officials had marked off the downs properly, the most likely scenario is that Colorado would have run a play on fourth down, but would have been more rushed than they otherwise were (since the clock would still have been running). This is completely different from the 1940 Cornell scenario, in which Cornell actually made five attampts at the end zone. Of course, it is impossible to know exactly what would have happened had the Colorado-Mizzou referees not made that mistake, but one cannot say with certainty that Colorado would have lost. I will try to input this change into the article, but if someone else can provide more details, feel free to edit it.

In response to your statement, "One can only assume that any QB with half a brain would not be likely to literally throw away his team's final shot at victory," I'd like to reference you to Reggie Ball literally throwing away his team's final shot at victory against Georgia in 2005. Failureofafriend (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Although I'm not on my IP, this is Maestroh.

Your assessment is correct. Johnson spiked the ball on fourth down. At the time he did it, the announcers thought it an absolute disaster. But they then decided that they had somehow miscounted the number of downs. In the heat of battle, it wasn't possible to assess the fact that the referees were wrong. In fact, one announcer insisted that the refs were NOT wrong.

After the game went to commercial, they did a review and figured out that the downs were incorrect. Both announcers were named Dave, I remember that.

Maestroh, even if you're not logged in or on 'your' IP, please sign all your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the line covering this: "Oddly, McCartney did not make the more compelling argument that Colorado had not truly benefited from a "fifth down", since Johnson would most likely not have spiked the ball on what the officials were calling third down had it been correctly designated as fourth down." since it doesn't have a cite and hasn't for a month. While I agree that it is a better argument, it violates WP:OR unless it can be cited as such. If you find a reliable source, please feel free to restore this into the article with the citation. --MECU≈talk 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

cornell vs. dartmouth

clearly the section the game famous for the "5th down" for sixty years before the colorado game needs a bit more written on it. that remains one of the most famous moments in college football history, and is a lot bigger, and worthy of the title "5th down" than the colorado game. at least both should be given equal status in the article? don't believe me? watch cbs not mention colorado at all in this tape of "the infamous 5th down" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKvefN4PmT4

128.252.188.235 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Fifth down" is now most commonly referring to the game that was described at length in this article. I do agree that the first instance is important, but not equally anymore. The 5 minute segment wasn't about "Fifth down", it was about that game's fifth down and it was on CSTV, not CBS. If one were to poll 100 college football fans, I would guess 99 or 100 would say "Fifth down" is the 1990 game (though, the comments on that youtube video one person says it was Nebraska vs. Missouri, oh my). If you want to expand the section to increase it's importance, than perhaps "Fifth down" should talk in general terms and the articles be returned to their previous merge state and a new one created for the first game. --MECU≈talk 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be a disambiguation page and two articles, or the 1990 game should be included in a subsection about _the_ Fifth Down Game, which is the one from 1940. The importance of the Fifth Down Game is not that five downs were played, but that the winning team later forfeited the game -- which is unique, and didn't happen in 1990, and gives the 1990 game its taint of controversy. The only reason people today know the 1990 game better is that most of them were not alive in 1940; the 1940 game is much more important historically and should be the one featured in an encyclopedia.

--Dartmothian (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I typed in "Fifth Down" looking for the Cornell-Dartmouth game and was redirected here. I had to read the entire article before finally coming to a mention of and a link to the Cornell-Dartmouth game. "Fifth Down" should like to a disambiguation page. At the very least, there should be a link at the top of the article that says "This article is about the 1990 football game between Colorado and Missouri. For the 1940 game between Cornell and Dartmouth, see Fifth Down Game (1940). Failureofafriend (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note on sources

Came across this article. I corrected a couple of very confusing sentences. Generally seems good, in line with WP:MOS and the sources cited seem reasonable (ie, it only cites CU's sports page for game results, which could probably be cited to ESPN or SI.) However, an article must not cite other wikipedia articles, so under no circumstances is 1990 NCAA Division I-A football season a reliable source. (That article may, of course, be linked in a "See also" section.) Gimmetrow 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed that reference and replaced it with the 2006 Media Guide by Georgia Tech, where someone could also see their claim as National Champions. ESPN and SI can't be used for these since they only give schedules for the past few years, they don't have historical information such as this. That may change in the future, but I checked and they only had as far back as 2002 on ESPN and I couldn't find anything but the current season at SI. Thank you for the pointers. --MECU≈talk 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's good. I see this has been around a while as a GA candidate. I think there are some WP:OR issues. In Fallout, the article is interpreting NCAA rules; a cite to someone else saying this would be best. Later: "With a loss at Missouri, the Colorado record would have been 10–2–1, and the Buffaloes surely would not have been considered for the national title with that record." If this can be cited to some sports commentator, great, but if not then however probable the statement, isn't it speculation? In another place, it says "the tight end would have been able to score a touchdown and presumably put the game away, but he slipped due to the poor conditions of the field." That he slipped is probably self-evident, but is it really clear why he slipped? or what might have happened had he not slipped? If it can be attributed to a coach or commentator, then it can be cited as his speculation. I think these are the main issues holding back a GA. Gimmetrow 13:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I changed the rules "might be interpreted as" to a more definite statement. The following text after that explain why the rules say that, so I don't believe that can be WP:OR. I agree with your second point, that although everyone familiar with college football would agree, that it's still speculation. I will search for a source. As for the last, it is fairly evident watching that he slips due to the field. But I will find a source for this one since it should be fairly easy. The previous 10-2-1 might be harder to find though. --MECU≈talk 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference of McCartney complaining the field was slippery and copied another reference there from the QB saying it was slippery as well. I removed the conjecture that the "tight end would have been able to score, and presumably put the game away" since that is WP:OR and there isn't an available source for it (that I could find) and the fact is he slipped, it doesn't matter "what would have happened". --MECU≈talk 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, seems to have the bugs worked out. I think "It has been called..." phrases sound better stating who called them such, but it's not worth fussing over, and it seems a "Good Article" at this point. (Special congratulations for not using the word "also"!) For further improvement and FAC specifically, this article could probably benefit from greater discussion of other "fifth down" situations (the "comprehensive" requirement), and some other statements could use referencing. Eg: "The Missouri game caused Colorado's ranking to decline to 14th." This should cite that they were 14th, and ideally that this game was responsible. Gimmetrow 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the NFL's play-by-play for the Bengals-Ravens game on November 5, 2006, and it disputes source #20. The Bengals did NOT have a fifth down in the first quarter. The person writing the article thought that Johnson's eight yard run was on 1st and 10, but it was actually on 2nd and 1, thus giving the Bengals a first down. That source should be removed. 71.202.242.152 (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some work needed

I just came on this article rather randomly, and was not familiar with the game. As a GA, I think there are several pretty critical issues that should be addressed. I'm not nominating for WP:GAR, because I think these could all be addressed pretty easily by anyone concerned with this article:

• The lead section should probably give a bit more information on what happened, why it was controversial.
• The background section may be more detailed than it needs to be; there are other articles for a detailed description of the rules of football. So maybe it could be shortened with more concise language. If kept at its present length, it should probably be split into at least two or maybe three paragraphs, for readbility. And it needs some citations.
• The recap of the entire game is useful, but it's not really the point of the article; it seems the significant stuff all happened in the last 3 minutes. There should be a new section or a sub-section for the final 3 minutes of the game, so that a reader quickly scanning through the article can find the important part easily.
• There is only a single paragraph (second-to-last of "Game recap" section) devoted directly to the subject of the article. It should probably be split (within the new section suggested above) into paragraphs, and expanded, detailing specifics like the first four downs, the cause of the confusion, the fifth down, and the goal line controversy (which is apparently separate).

On the whole, it sounds like an interesting controversy, worthy of a bit more detailed and carefully-structured coverage. -Pete (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the background section, it states incorrectly that if a team fails to make a first down after 4 attempts, the other team gets the ball "where last played". Of course, usually a team will punt or, if close enought, attempt a field goal on 4th down, but if they "go for it" on 4th down and still fail to make a first down, the other team gets the ball where it was spotted as result of the play. 69.29.207.109 (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fifth Down Game (1990)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I'm reassessing this article for WP:GA Sweeps. After reading it, there's a lot of work that needs to be done on this article. Most of my comments are the same as Pete's in a section above, but I have others as well:

• The WP:LEAD needs expansion.
• The Background section is both unrefrerenced and needlessly detailed. Since it was a typical college game during the season, not much needs to be here, and only rules that apply need to stand.
• The game summary needs expansion. See other college game GAs for good examples, and of course the fifth down part needs to be split off and beefed up a bit. (in fact the background could go in the new fifth down section itself)
• A good deal of the National championship section is unsourced, with quite a bit of information that, again, has nothing to do with the 1990 season, let alone this game.
• Ref #9 (why can't they win?) is a deadlink.
• Nothing mentioned about the ref squad after the original suspension.

I'll put this on hold for five days. If a good deal of progress is not made by then, it fails. If all this is done, I'll do a more detailed review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After mulling it over, I'm actually going to delist it now, because there is a huge amount of work that needs to be done on this article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fifth Down Game (1990). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427032413/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n1_v221/ai_19006779 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n1_v221/ai_19006779

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fifth Down Game (1990). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613162821/http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1144&CID=550162 to http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1144&CID=550162

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fifth Down Game (1990). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708175404/http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/champions_national.html to http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/champions_national.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)