Musings from Arledge: Keep your hands off the USC - Notre Dame series

Far too often, USC has chosen coaches and athletic directors based on whether they had ties to USC and, therefore, “knew” USC. The university made a bunch of high-profile mistakes as a result.

Now we might be seeing the downside of picking leaders who are not Trojans.

In recent weeks, it has become clear that Lincoln Riley wants USC to play easier schedules. Looking at a schedule this year with LSU, Notre Dame, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and UCLA, I can understand that. So Riley is taking action. He has dropped the Ole Miss series. It has become clear that he would prefer not to have the LSU opener. And, now, he is hinting that he might like the Notre Dame series to disappear. 

Some USC fans are, foolishly, even agreeing with him.

You want to stop scheduling elite non-conference opponents outside of Notre Dame? Fair. You want to end the Notre Dame series? Get your hands off my program.

How could a USC head football coach, a USC athletic director, or longtime USC fans be in favor of dropping the greatest rivalry in college football? How could they be in favor of ditching the most important and best game on USC’s schedule? Either because they don’t really understand the importance of the rivalry, or because they have bought into some very mistaken assumptions.

Their argument is that it’s harder to make the playoffs when you both play in a difficult conference and play tough out-of-conference opponents, and those in favor of dropping the series note that most major powers schedule very few non-conference heavyweights. 

But college football is more than just about winning national titles. Texas has one national title in the last 50 years. So does Michigan. So does Notre Dame. Ohio State has two in the last fifty years. 

If you’re going to build your entire view of success around winning national titles, understand that those tend to come along only rarely, even for the bluest of bloods. 

But lots of the greatest college football moments come in years where the team does not win a national title. Are we to consider the Bush Push nothing just because USC didn’t win a national title that year? How about the 2008 season, which featured one of the best defenses in USC history as well as brutal beatdowns of Ohio State, Oregon, and Notre Dame, and a Rose Bowl win? Is that nothing? Should I consider the 1996 Notre Dame streak-breaker to be meaningless? How about Marinovich to Morton or Peete to Affholter? How about Carson Palmer’s senior year? Irrelevant? Should I not remember Junior Seau or Keyshawn? They never won titles. 

It is nothing short of absurd to say that the only thing that matters in college football is winning the national title. Playing in the greatest, most-storied rivalry in college football in two of the most iconic venues in the country is worth something. Seeing USC run onto the field in Notre Dame Stadium as the Notre Dame band plays the Notre Dame Victory March is worth something. Keeping alive one of the great traditions in sport when so many other college football traditions are dying is worth something. 

And let’s be clear about something, Lincoln. If you get USC to drop the Notre Dame rivalry in order to have a better shot at winning national titles, you better win a bunch of ‘em. I mean, you better be stacking up trophies like Nick Saban. You want to really ratchet up the pressure on you and your team, then push for an end to USC-Notre Dame in the name of winning national titles. See what happens. 

And here’s the other problem: I’m not convinced dropping Notre Dame would lead to more national titles. It might lead to more playoff berths. But titles? Doubt it.

Because let’s be clear about something: the winner of the Big 10 (or SEC) is making the playoff. Period. With a 12-team playoff, it doesn’t matter if the winner of one of the two best conferences lost a non-conference game to a major power. They’re in. In most years, the loser of the conference title game is also in. Elite USC teams are making the playoff.

It’s the good-but-not-great USC teams that will need help. And those teams aren’t running the table in the playoffs anyway. 

It is highly unlikely that a ten, eleven, or twelve seed is winning the college football playoff. Go look at the divisions where 16 teams make the playoffs. Look at who wins. It’s always the guys at the top. A 12-team playoff will give us a lot of playoff games, and it will be fun. But it will be highly unusual for anybody outside the top five to win the playoff, because there is a big gap between number three and number eleven in college football. That doesn’t mean the lower-ranked team can’t win a game. But a team that just squeaks into the playoff in one of the last couple of spots is almost certainly not going to run the table.

So this isn’t even about helping elite USC teams win the national title. You think the 1972 or 2004 teams would need help? It’s about trying to sneak into the playoff as a lower seed when you couldn’t win your conference and are not an elite team.  

And I am not interested in dropping the Notre Dame series and taking an axe to USC’s football tradition (and self-respect) so we can sneak some decent USC teams into playoffs that they’re not even going to win. 

I am a Lincoln Riley supporter. I’ve criticized him—and deservedly so. His decision to bring Alex Grinch from OU was a major error. His decision to keep him after the defensive collapse that first year was a New Coke-level mistake. But I still think Riley will be successful. I love the defensive hires, and I trust him as an offensive coach. I support him. 

But if I had to make a choice between dropping the Notre Dame series and dropping Lincoln Riley, that’s just about the easiest call I’d ever have to make.