After last night's Class C-2 scores

BBGun10

Senior
Oct 7, 2005
424
410
63
It's obvious we need to move the playoffs from 16 teams to only 8, as there were only two games within 14 points of each other. Not even competitive, it's obvious we don't need that many.

Ok, now that we got that useless argument out of the way that everyone uses for reducing the class D playoffs, let's actually take a look. Maybe instead of giving auto bids to teams that win terrible districts, we need to look at who people actually lost to? I see Stanton didn't get in to the playoffs because they lost to an undefeated team by less than two scores and their other loss was to a one loss team. How about instead of bitching about more kids getting the opportunity to play in the playoffs, we make sure we get the right ones in there? Reducing the amount of teams is not an option and just a moronic take. It hurts nothing giving kids the experience of playoff football, no matter what the outcome is.

Really the only people that get hurt due to playoff games are people that get left out, not the other way around. If you go to 16 teams you are forcing terrible players/teams to go to one extra game with the 9 regular season games, and many times they don't even want to be there towards the end of the year. Get the season over quicker for them. Trimming the fat and letting only 32 play that ninth game, most all of them have a few wins so they at least have a punchers chance and aren't lost on the football field.
 
Last edited:

Big Red Thoughts

Sophomore
Oct 25, 2015
332
109
0
It's obvious we need to move the playoffs from 16 teams to only 8, as there were only two games within 14 points of each other. Not even competitive, it's obvious we don't need that many.

Ok, now that we got that useless argument out of the way that everyone uses for reducing the class D playoffs, let's actually take a look. Maybe instead of giving auto bids to teams that win terrible districts, we need to look at who people actually lost to? I see Stanton didn't get in to the playoffs because they lost to an undefeated team by less than two scores and their other loss was to a one loss team. How about instead of bitching about more kids getting the opportunity to play in the playoffs, we make sure we get the right ones in there? Reducing the amount of teams is not an option and just a moronic take. It hurts nothing giving kids the experience of playoff football, no matter what the outcome is.

Really the only people that get hurt due to playoff games are people that get left out, not the other way around. If you go to 16 teams you are forcing terrible players/teams to go to one extra game with the 9 regular season games, and many times they don't even want to be there towards the end of the year. Get the season over quicker for them. Trimming the fat and letting only 32 play that ninth game, most all of them have a few wins so they at least have a punchers chance and aren't lost on the football field.
This argument has already been made, Stanton lost very close to Battle Creek and turned it over 5 times against OC, they are a top ten team for sure in C2 and can compete with anyone with the kids they have.
 

BBGun10

Senior
Oct 7, 2005
424
410
63
This argument has already been made, Stanton lost very close to Battle Creek and turned it over 5 times against OC, they are a top ten team for sure in C2 and can compete with anyone with the kids they have.

So you agree they should not have been left out, and the 16 team format actually hurt them.
 
Huskerland Preps

Latest

  1. 01 Huskerland Preps Huskerland Week One Notebook: The O-C Be Back
  2. 02 Huskerland Preps By Whatever Means Necessary: Braxon Eichelberger, O'Neill
  3. 03 Huskerland Preps The Big Bang Theory: Bryce Vigness, Papillion-LaVista
  4. 04 Huskerland Preps Huskerland's Week 1 Top Tens: 8-Man, Six-Man
  5. 05 Huskerland Preps Huskerland's Week 1 Top Tens: 11-Man