One of the greatest rivalries in college sports is back in the news. The USC-Notre Dame series, 95 games old and stocked with legends, is facing an existential crisis.
The schools are scheduled to meet this season in South Bend. Beyond that, it’s muddled. USC’s website lists a home date with the Irish in 2026, but Notre Dame reportedly prefers a longer-term deal — a step the Trojans aren’t willing to take just yet.
Complex issues are at the heart of the impasse, for this is about much more than two teams and one glorious series. It’s about the future of non-conference scheduling across the Power Four, distrust of the College Football Playoff selection process, the unfortunate but essential role of automatic bids to the CFP and, naturally, the growing hegemony of the Big Ten and SEC.
It’s also about a butterfly flapping its wings in Ann Arbor 15 months ago and the chain reaction from coast to coast and, perhaps, across the years. But we’ll get to that component momentarily.
Let’s start with the news, which is best understood with 10 months of context:
— USC coach Lincoln Riley was the first to address the potential end of the Notre Dame series, telling reporters at Big Ten football media days last July: “There’s been a lot of teams that sacrifice rivalry games.” Instantly, warning lights began to flash.
— A week later, USC athletic director Jen Cohen appeared to walk back Riley’s comments — but not all the way. “Things are changing,” Cohen told ESPN710, “but tradition is part of doing what’s best, too. So we’re going to do our best to honor that and evolve in this space.”
— Cohen returned to the issue in February during an interview with The Athletic: “In an ideal world, we’re going to keep playing each other. With that being said, the landscape has changed dramatically. We’re now playing in a conference where we fly back and forth across the country every other week, and CFP expansion and how you get access to the CFP and how things are seeded and selected. Those, to me, are important, unanswered questions.”
— The subject disappeared from public view until this week, when Sports Illustrated reported the Trojans have offered a one-year extension to host Notre Dame in 2026 but are wary of signing a long-term deal because of uncertainty about the CFP selection process. What’s more, the Trojans are interested in moving the game to the early portion of the season — a change that makes loads of sense from USC’s perspective.
Continuing the series with the existing logistics means: 1) In odd years, the Trojans visit South Bend in the middle of October, during the meat of the Big Ten season and accompanying cross-country travel, and 2) In even years, the Trojans finish the season against the Irish in the Coliseum, immediately after the Big Ten gauntlet.
Granted, the dilemma is rooted in USC’s decision to join the Big Ten in the first place. But that’s irrelevant to Cohen and Riley, who are focused on what serves the football program best in the existing competitive environment. As much as fans might want to believe otherwise, nobody is sitting around Heritage Hall saying, “We must carry this additional burden, regardless of the competitive costs, because of a decision made three years ago that was in the best interest of USC.”
Playing the Irish in the middle of the conference schedule (odd years) and at the conclusion of an exhausting season (even years) creates an obstacle that no other team in the Big Ten faces. All other marquee non-conference games (Michigan vs. Texas, Ohio State vs. Oklahoma, etc.) are played in early September.
An additional complication that USC must weigh: The Big Ten and SEC are discussing an in-season series that would generate untapped media revenue. Unless the Trojans received an exemption from that series, they would play nine conference games, plus Notre Dame and whichever SEC opponent they happened to draw in a given year.
Add it up, and USC’s risk level would increase, which explains the hesitancy to extend the series with Notre Dame until the CFP access question is resolved.
If the Big Ten has four automatic bids to a 16-team event, non-conference losses would have no impact and USC, in theory, would be more open to playing the Irish annually.
Those automatic bids — the SEC would receive four, as well — are unseemly in concept but necessary in reality for the sport’s most powerful conferences.
Why? Because they don’t trust the CFP selection committee, especially when it comes to giving proper weight to schedule strength.
Automatic bids would provide a layer of protection for the blue bloods from the whims of a committee that uses an inscrutable process.
A committee that faces little accountability, changes a portion of its membership each year and gets boxed in by the weekly rankings it’s contractually obligated to provide ESPN.
How did we get here?
In our view, the butterfly effect began in the winter of 2024, when Michigan declined to recruit a quarterback from the transfer portal and, instead, leaned into a collection of unproven, marginally-talented options.
That led to a mediocre season in which the Wolverines had four losses by the time (Nov. 5) the CFP selection committee released its initial rankings. Not once over the course of five weeks did Michigan crack the Top 25, much less move into range of an at-large berth.
And that piece is crucial to understanding the chessboard, because Michigan’s irrelevance allowed athletic director Warde Manuel, who happened to be the chair of the selection committee, to participate in all discussions.
There was no need for Manuel to recuse himself, even when the focus turned to Michigan’s peers in the Big Ten. According to the committee’s policy, athletic directors are only recused when their employer is discussed. Manuel was in the room when other Big Ten teams were evaluated and voted on.
If you aren’t familiar with the Hotline’s view of the CFP and NCAA Tournament selection committees, know this: We believe the chair has an immense influence through words, actions and mere presence.
Now, let’s play the Hotline’s theory out to its logical conclusion.
Manuel’s presence in the room when Big Ten teams were discussed served to benefit one in particular: Indiana.
Despite playing an atrocious non-conference schedule and losing decisively to the only ranked team they faced (Ohio State), the Hoosiers were consistently in the top 10.
Ultimately, they received an at-large bid while a collection of three-loss SEC teams (Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi), which beat ranked opponents and played vastly tougher schedules, were left out.
Yes, the SEC contingent had bad losses. The point here is not to argue in favor of the SEC but, rather, to speculate on the reaction within the conference to Indiana’s ranking. (Penn State also seemed to receive a higher ranking than warranted by its schedule strength.)
And in our view, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and his athletic directors and coaches were much more frustrated than their public comments since that point have indicated.
As a result, distrust of the committee soared. It soared, and it spread. Yes, the Big Ten benefitted in 2024, but that means nothing moving forward. And it certainly means nothing in a world where Big Ten and SEC teams participate in an annual series that increases the likelihood of a third loss, or a fourth loss.
Hence the ongoing push by Sankey and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti for automatic bids — for an insistence that the CFP selection process include protections against the committee’s whims.
We might never know about the validity of the theory laid out above. But there is no debating the current state of play: Without automatic qualifiers, the non-conference showdowns at the heart of college football’s history and popularity — and there are none better than USC-Notre Dame — could vanish over time.
The negotiations playing out in Heritage Hall and South Bend offer a window into the issue at the heart of CFP upheaval that leaves such a deep distaste and has engendered pushback from the ACC, Big 12 and Group of Five leagues.
The Big Ten and SEC don’t trust the committee.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline