[Crossbones]

Agree 100%. Turnovers are a part of the game and if you turn the ball over as much as Breathitt did, you are going to lose more times than not. The fact that they were able to have a chance to win even with the turnovers shows me that they were as good if not better than Belfry. But as I said, you can not turn the ball over and expect to beat a good team.

I completely agree that turnovers are part of the game. Whether caused by opposing team or out of own mistakes. When I played we were taught to cause turnovers. But, Belfry had turnovers also..they threw and interception and had to my memory two fumbles, but heads up playing recovering both. All but one of Breathitt's turnovers were caused by Belfry. Breathitt had 5 turnovers..the strip, muff punt, an interception and two fumbles which were from hard hits. Belfry also had 3 to 1 on personal foul pentalies. Two of those putting Breathitt in short fields, one setting up Breathitt on their last td. Belfry's D had held Breathitt to a 3rd and long if memory serves an a late hit which was questionable gave them first and 10 right inside the 15 I believe. After factoring all of that how can you all say that Breathitt was "just as good if not better than Belfry" Maybe Breathitt had not played a Defense like they had against Belfry. Breathitt has a good football team, no doubt. But "better than Belfry" they are not. Why is it so hard for Breathitt fans to admit that?