Looks like ESPN thinks that LSU will play West Virginia in the Sugal Bowl. I say if LSU can't get to PasedenaI, then a Sugar Bowl win wouldn't be bad. But if I were LSU I would definately not look past West Virginia, they have a pretty good running attack, and almost beat a good Virginia Tech team.
I guy I use to work with has already e-mailed with smack saying WVU will put 50 pts on us. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
We are going to play them. It is going to be USF BULLS(Amp hill's next team), they beat the hell out of louisville and lost by just ten points to pennst. They will beat wva then lose to us. :thumb:
A few months ago, someone posted a thread about how playing Illinois in the Sugar Bowl after the '01 season was bad because we failed to gain any notoriety/prestige by drumming Illinois. I mean, they've barely won three games since! And they aren't a Big Ten "name" like Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State. It would be similar to Mississippi State winning the SEC--what a buzz kill for whoever had to play them in the Sugar Bowl. Everyone laughed at that guy and called him stupid for posting something so arbitrary. But I thought he made a good point, and I've thought that many times myself--how we may have STILL been getting residual "style" points in the polls by having beaten a Michigan or Ohio State in that game, instead of a team no one knows or cares about. We'd have gotten some mileage out of it, instead of never having it mentioned. Now, we set up to play WVA (pretty bad) or even worse, USF. If we'd win, they'd say we didn't play anyone worth anything. If we lost, we'd be #20 or lower in the preseason polls next year. And we all know, the preseason polls DO matter.
That's a very good point. Look how Texas win over Michigan did wonders for them in the polls. I'd much, much rather play a "name" team than WVa.
