South Carolina vs. LSU: Gamecocks' Title Hopes Will End with Loss to Tigers
The South Carolina Gamecocks are enjoying incredible success this season and even have a shot at a national title, but those hopes will end after running into the LSU Tigers in Week 7.
Head coach Steve Spurrier's squad is coming off a dominant win against what was the No. 5 ranked team in the nation, the Georgia Bulldogs.
There's no doubt the Gamecocks' offense has been impressive so far this season, but they have yet to take on a defense like the Tigers'.
It's one thing to put up a ton of points against lackluster defenses like that of UAB and Kentucky, as well as more talented defenses like Missouri's and Georgia's.
However, it's another deal entirely to put points on the board against LSU's elite defense that is currently ranked No. 8 in the country in points against per game, allowing a little under 13.
That means the Gamecocks will not have the same success on offense as they have had this entire season, making this a low-scoring game. As we all know, those are the types of games that LSU specializes in, so South Carolina will be playing right into the strength of its opponent.
The closest game the Gamecocks have played was their Week 1 win over Vanderbilt, 17-13. Other than that, South Carolina has won each game by no less than 21 points, so clearly this isn't a team with much experience winning close games.
Home-field advantage will also be a huge edge for the Tigers.
Besides the fact that LSU hasn't lost two games in a row since 2008, the Tigers have also won 21 straight home games, making it nearly impossible to beat this team on their home turf.
After a devastating loss last week, you can be certain that the Tigers are coming out with extra motivation this week. Not to mention, a win over the Gamecocks will propel the Tigers right back into the thick of things in the national title hunt, as if they didn't have enough motivation already.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?