This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/cfb by /u/Honestly_ on 2025-07-29 14:11:33+00:00.

by Bobak Ha’Eri

The future of the USC-Notre Dame football rivalry is uncertain, with the present contracts only going until 2026.

Both programs have stated interest in having it continue, though USC is the party wavering in its commitment to the storied intersectional rivalry.

Big Ten Media Days gave USC head coach Lincoln Riley plenty of opportunities to discuss the matter, and from his explanations it’s clear he sees it as his duty to place the USC’s chances at a College Football Playoff berth over one of its oldest traditions — that is, unless, the rest of college football accedes to the automatic-qualifier playoff format being pushed by the Big Ten Conference.

Below are key summaries, followed by the extended answers so Riley can explain it himself.

Takeaways:

  • Riley asserts there is unlikely to be a long-term contract for USC-Notre Dame rivalry without the automatic-qualifier playoff format being pushed by Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti (and to varying degrees by the other Big Ten coaches).
  • Notre Dame’s lack of conference is held to give it an advantage, something heard from other coaches.
  • Riley thinks having a automatic-qualifier playoff format would save non-conference rivalry games across college football. This obviously is a mixed bag as some are continuing without issue, while others have been lost. While SEC teams have kept several non-conference rivals, they also play one less conference game.
  • Riley, following the lead of Petitti, asserts that human biases would negatively affect Playoff selections [more on this below]
  • Riley is less committal to the route of a “standardized schedule” as a way to avoid losing traditional non-conference rivalry games. (e.g. both SEC/Big Ten playing the same number of conference games)
  • Riley implies that people within USC and its sphere agree with him, and only outsiders disagree. [No one has a clear answer when it comes to USC donors or fanbase, though there are plenty of anecdotal stories, both reported and on message boards, that differ with his position.]

Tony Petitti has made concerns over subjectivity a major point in his push to move to an automatic-qualifier playoff model over a 5+11 model. While he was on the podium, I asked him whether there were issues with subjectivity in the committee this past season (if anything Indiana getting in over SEC name brands showed the system worked in the Big Ten’s favor), he sidestepped to say that there had been a long history of human flaws leading to bad selections in both the BCS and 4-team playoff eras. One thing to keep in mind: the Alabama over Florida State controversy does appear to be a direct argument against one of Riley arguments that humans will always favor an undefeated schedule over one with a loss.

Long Answers:

After his remarks on the podium, Riley was asked about the rivalry question by one of the better USC-focused journalist-podcasters — crafted to avoid making it too accusatory, and letting Riley explain himself a bit:

Q: Talk about the importance, the significance of the USC-Notre Dame rivalry. Does it matter when that game is played during the schedule?

Lincoln: [After briefly saying the date in the schedule doesn’t matter, as well as talking about how excited he was to coach in the USC-Notre Dame Rivalry, comparing it to the excitement he had when he first found out he’d get to be a head coach in the Texas-Oklahoma rivalry]

But, also, my allegiance and my loyalty is not to Notre Dame, and it’s not to anybody else. I’m the head football coach at USC, and I’m going to back USC, and I’m going to do everything possible that I can in my power to make USC as good as it can and not going to let anything stand in between that.

I’m very hopeful we can get to a point where it makes sense. It’s one of those situations right now where the two schools are in radically different situations. I think we can all agree with that with one having a conference affiliation and one not.

I think it’s another — I think there’s a million reasons why that we should very seriously as a college football community, that we should adopt the automatic qualifying in terms of the College Football Playoff. This might be the most important one, right, is that we give every reason for college football to preserve nonconference games that mean a lot to the history of the game and to the fan bases and the former players and everybody that’s been associated with it.

I’m very hopeful that we can get there, and I’m very hopeful that we play this game forever.

Jumping to the breakout session, he was asked about it several times from slightly different angles. I directed one question, followed-up by the same reporter as above.

Quick logistical aside: The breakout sessions placed multiple coaches and players around the room simultaneously. I needed to rotate around. However, I went back and listened to the audio of when I wasn’t by Riley to catch all the questions on the topic [this is also why some questions repeat in media day pressers, people rotate around and may miss the earlier answer – it’s just the nature of logistics so no one gets too annoyed]:

Q: [poor audio, but asking about the tradition of the rivalry]

Riley: [First reiterates how much he’s loved rivalries since being a player.]

The unfortunate part right now is we’re all put in a little bit of an impossible situation where you got to make decisions on something that you care about: something that’s so important to the history, the fans, and all that as a rivalry — while also doing competitively relative to the Playoff and the chance to win a National Championship. What’s best for your own program? And that’s not an easy situation to be in.

And this one is certainly more complicated because one team is in a conference and one team is not in a conference. It is what it is. I’m not throwing shade at anybody. It’s just the truth. It makes it — the value relative to the Playoff for the two teams is radically different. Radically different.

So, our hope is obvious that we can get this Playoff system to the automatic-qualifying model and if that happens that will pave the way to any rivalry that loses its conference affiliation — there’s a bunch of them out there — will have a chance to live on forever. It’s a real simple solution.

Certainly, hopeful we can get to that point. I want the game to be played forever, I think it would be really sad if SC-Notre Dame was ever not played. But I’m also not the head coach of Notre Dame, I’m not some person in the middle of it. My allegiance is to SC and that’s not going to change.

Q: In that 4 automatic-qualifier format — is anything lost when those games aren’t really going to matter for the actual Playoff? —because that will just be based on conference schedule… Do you lose something by those games not having those same Playoff stakes?

Lincoln: I don’t think so. In fact, I even think it incentivizes you even more to plan because…I just don’t think any SC-Notre Dame…any team, or fanbase, or coaching staff is ever going to walk out on the field in that game and not want to do everything that they possibly can to win that thing.

I just think it incentivizes you more to plan, prepping your team, playing another really good program, playing in big time atmospheres, exposure that they get — everything it’s so meaningful to the former players, the fans, and everyone. I just think competitiveness is too high in this game for that to happen.

The other thing I want to stay on that, too: The game would still affect [Playoff] seeding, and that’s really important. You get value for winning the game. You win the game and go in the Playoff — well that’s another thing that will help your seeding.

It’s great, it just doesn’t put you in a competitive disadvantage on access to the Playoff. I think that’s the key right now.

Q: Do you think that the College Football Playoff Committee actually said [inaudible] “We’re going to focus on the schedule”, just not just use the words?

Lincoln: It’ll never happen. On one of the shows today, one of the 74 I’ve done <chuckle> I gave this analogy: If last year after the first game — take our LSU game last year — and you’re evaluating LSU, and they lose to a ranked opponent in a heck of a football game, lose right at the end. All right, so they’re 0-1 and somebody else played an FCS team and they won by 31 points. All right. Everybody wants to say, well, it may be more impressive to play a really good game that came right there to the end. And it probably is. But at the end of the day, nobody’s going to pick a loss over a win. It’s like not going to happen. You can’t justify it. People are not going to look, if they’re making a Committee decision, are not going to look at this record versus that record and put the other team in. And we saw proof of it. We’ve seen proof of it forever.

At the end of the day, when it’s humans, it’s going to be win-loss record and that’s it. I just don’t think that’s going to change — and it’s not fair to those people because how do you make that decision? It’s an impossible. We have put some of the brightest, smartest people with incredible histories in this game. You’re giving them an impossible task. You’re trying to compare things that are…

Content cut off. Read original on old.reddit.com/…/rcfb_reporting_lincoln_riley_on_…