USC–NOTRE DAME: A CENTURY-OLD RIVALRY PUT ON HOLD, AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT MODERN COLLEGE FOOTBALL

USC Trojans quarterback Jayden Maiava (14) at the center of the pack gets over the goal line for a touchdown in the first half of a college football game against the Notre Dame Fighting Irish played on November 30, 2024 at the Los Angeles Coliseum in Los Angeles, CA. (Photo by John Cordes/Icon Sportswire)

The decision to pause the rivalry between the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the USC Trojans beginning with the 2026 season represents far more than a scheduling gap. It is a powerful symbol of how profoundly college football has changed in the era of an expanded College Football Playoff.

First played in 1926, Notre Dame and USC built one of the sport’s most iconic intersectional rivalries. For nearly a century, the matchup endured through generations, geography, and shifting eras of the game. Outside of brief interruptions during World War II and the COVID-affected 2020 season, the series stood as a constant, with Notre Dame holding a 53-38-5 edge. The annual battle for the Jeweled Shillelagh was not just a game, but a marker of tradition and national relevance.

That tradition now collides with modern reality. USC’s move to the Big Ten dramatically altered its competitive landscape. The Trojans now face a conference schedule filled with perennial playoff contenders, leaving little margin for error. In that context, an additional nonconference game against Notre Dame — often played late in the season — becomes less of a résumé booster and more of a potential liability. One loss at the wrong time can erase months of work.

Notre Dame, meanwhile, continues to operate under a unique model. Its independence provides unmatched scheduling flexibility and, starting in 2026, a clearly defined path to the playoff with a top-12 finish. While entirely legitimate, that structure creates an imbalance in risk. Losses tend to weigh more heavily on conference-bound programs than on an independent whose résumé is evaluated differently.

Negotiations reportedly stalled over timing and competitive equity. USC favored moving the game to the very start of the season, believing late-season losses are judged more harshly by the selection committee. Notre Dame declined, unwilling to abandon the rivalry’s traditional placement. With neither side prepared to bend further, a pause became unavoidable.

The rivalry is not dead. Both schools have expressed interest in reviving the series later in the decade. Still, its temporary disappearance is telling. In today’s college football, history alone is no longer enough. Even the most storied traditions must now navigate a system driven by playoff access, perception, and risk management.