A Split Crown?

I think most hardcore college football fans know about this billboard. It all stems from the "shared" national championship of 2003. LSU won the Sugar Bowl that year, which was the BCS title game. USC won the Rose Bowl and, atop the AP Poll, also claimed the national championship. ESPN still refers to 2003 as a year of co-champions and still talk about USC's back-to-back national championships. LSU fans, on the other hand, despise the fact that USC is somehow credited with a co-championship when they did not get the crystal football.

To impartial observers, this debate is funny, pitting snobbish and aloof USC fans versus hyperpassionate and short-fused LSU fans, resulting in the billboard pictured above. (USC wanted to put up a billboard in Baton Rouge as a response, but the Tiger fans threatened to burn it down.) I was thinking today of a scenario that would make this debate even more amusing. What if USC's position were suddenly reversed?

Here's the scenario:
1) Michigan beats LSU in the Rose Bowl by a convincing margin.
2) USC wins the BCS Bowl.
3) Michigan gets the top spot in the AP poll because they beat a great LSU team and their only loss is to Ohio State close at Ohio State, while USC lost to a mediocre Oregon State team.

This scenario, while far fetched, would mean that USC would be in LSU's position in 2003. They would have won the BCS Bowl, but would have a cloud on their record because of Michigan. The Trojans would either have to acknowledge Michigan as a co-champion or release their claim to the 2003 crown. The more likely case is that USC claims both, making the LSU fans even more irate.

To LSU fans, this image represents USC's admission of the facts of 2003, #2 indeed.