'USC Doesn’t Need Notre Dame': Colin Cowherd Says Historic Rivalry Is Now a One-Sided Burden

His reasoning centers on schedule strength and playoff positioning. USC now competes in the Big Ten, facing programs like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Washington and Oregon during conference play. Adding Notre Dame to that mix creates another potential landmine on the road to the College Football Playoff.

The Fighting Irish, meanwhile, operate as an independent with more flexibility in building their schedule. They need marquee wins to strengthen their playoff resume, and USC provides exactly that kind of opportunity.

Cowherd suggested that if he were USC athletic director Jen Cohen, he would renegotiate the terms entirely. The game would happen every other year instead of annually, and it would be played in Sep rather than late in the season.

USC’s Big Ten Burden Makes Notre Dame Game Feel Like Unnecessary Risk

USC joined the Big Ten knowing the schedule would be demanding, but that decision came with significant financial benefits and stability. USC finds tradition inconvenient, as the entity most interested in changing this college football rivalry is the same one that started the demise of the Pac-12. The Trojans chose this path, but that doesn’t mean they have to accept every consequence without pushback.

The Irish maintain their independent status, which gives them scheduling freedom but also requires them to piece together a competitive slate each year.

Notre Dame desperately needs this game because it lacks the built-in strength of schedule that comes from Big Ten membership. USC needs this game less and less as its conference slate grows more challenging.

That’s the imbalance Cowherd sees, and it’s hard to argue with his logic given the current state of the sport. Whether USC follows through and forces a renegotiation remains to be seen, but the conversation has clearly begun about what this rivalry should look like going forward.