Talk:Super Bowl XX
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Super Bowl XX was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
Contents |
[edit] What Might Have Been
The 1985 Bears were a great team no doubt about it, but I can only wonder what might have been for the Bears. This team could have won 2 or perhaps 3 more championships in the 1980's, but yes it all began when Buddy Ryan left the team, and then fame got into the Bears head, with all of the TV Commercials, Bear players appearing in non-total sports magazines like Rolling Stone. Later the Bears quarterbacks playing a game of musical chairs, a lack of a total offense and eventually their best players (Gary Fencik, Jim Mcmahon, Wilbur Marshall, Walter Payton, etc.) were traded or retired ended all hope of the Bears Dynasty that never was. written by Videoman1969@aol.com 12:16 pm 6/16/2006
[edit] Spread
What is the source for the claim that the Bears were only ten point favourites? I think in Jim McMahon's book "McMahon!" he refers to the spread being in the teens, something like 18pts. MrChuffy 10:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Last item currently under "References" section:
- All-Time Super Bowl Odds from The Sports Network (Last accessed October 16, 2005)
- Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
I'm failing this right of the bat because of no inline citations, there is other problems with the article like choppy prose and trivia section, but for now fix this, and I'll tell you more later Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Da" Bears
While this appellation is a fair representation of how Chicagoans talk, it did not gain popularity particularly in written form until the Saturday Night Live "superfans" sketches some years later. It was not a nickname at the time, so it can be applied only retrospectively. Alternatively, try "Shufflin'" Bears or "Monsters of the Midway II" (The original monsters being from the 50s). KriZe 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] McMahon's headband
What are the sources for the details of McMahon's headband issue? The facts presented don't match my recollection. Most sources [1] I'm finding state that the original headband had an Adidas logo, but only one [2] (a 2002 article from the St. Petersburg times) claims that the word "Adidas" was handwritten. As I recall the story, the original headband was official Adidas gear (not handwritten) and only the "Rozelle" joke was handwritten. But I'd like to see some original sources, rather than retrospectives, to clear the whole thing up.
(It would be interesting, as well, if anyone could find an analysis of how this incident contrasts with the NFL's current policy, where every single player wears a Nike logo on his jersey.)
- McMahon was reprimanded by Commissioner Rozelle for his "Adidas" headband (not handwritten BTW) in the NFC divisional playoff. For the NFC Championship Game, McMahon wore a handwritten "Rozelle" headband. One of the stories in the runup to Super Bowl XX was what kind of headband McMahon would wear. For the game, here were at least 3: "JDF Cure", "POW-MIA" and "Pluto". The article mentions the headband issue only in the pregame hype, but it would be worthwhile to add McMahon's SB headbands to show how that story ends. KriZe 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Didn't Anyone Notice...
...That the Challenger disaster took place two days after Super Bowl XX? What happened with Bears fans when this occured?
Just curious. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Why keep any of the info on the field goal?
The Bears scored a controversial field goal at the end of the half. Information about this play should be relevant to the article right? Either the entire paragraph should be removed, or it should be made as complete as possible. The current information is incomplete. When people have tried to add to it (including references) it has been undone. Until this can be resolved I am disputing the neutrality of the article.
Smackalot (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the page history, I noticed one of the citations removed was actually is a copyvio of the real article from SportingNews.com.[3]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Updated info looks good - Thanks! :-)
Smackalot (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.231.186 (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Had more time to look at the info - it looks better but we should still look for a more comprehensive account of the field goal. This was a huge play in the game (a big momentum boost for Da Bears going into the half) and the current version does not reflect this. Smackalot (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
