The criticism directed at Notre Dame from various corners of the college football community for opting out of a bowl game this year was entirely misdirected and unproductive. Such indignation and effort would have been better spent addressing Monday’s startling announcement concerning the cessation of the storied Jeweled Shillelagh Rivalry between Notre Dame and USC.
Without a doubt, the responsibility for this termination lies squarely with USC.
This discourse has been ongoing for more than a year. It largely began with Lincoln Riley’s initial remarks regarding efforts to simplify USC’s path to the playoffs, and the situation has since escalated dramatically. There appeared to be substantial opposition from former Trojan athletes and affluent USC benefactors who expressed outrage and disbelief at the mere contemplation of dissolving one of the most significant rivalries in athletic history.
However, those lacking courage only accelerate their retreat once exposed.
“Timidity” is the sole descriptor that surfaces (besides “weak”) upon encountering this statement:
“Nonetheless, authorities at USC concluded that the scheduled match date was unsuitable, taking into account previous rulings by the CFP selection committee regarding penalties for teams experiencing defeats, particularly late in the season.”
USC is transparently acknowledging a pre-emptive apprehension of a defeat against Notre Dame. As an elite institution and historically dominant force in college football, it is perplexing how this organization arrived at such a juncture. Notre Dame has historically controlled the rivalry, holding a 53-38-5 advantage over USC. The Irish have secured victory in their last three encounters, and in 11 of the previous 15. This contest has consistently exhibited periods of dominance by one side — yet, throughout the 2002-2008 era, when USC maintained an 8-0 record against the Irish, no one associated with Notre Dame ever contemplated discontinuing the USC series.
As if terminating the series simply because USC lacks the resolve to secure a victory against the Irish, we are presented with this noteworthy insight from L.A. Times journalist, Ryan Kartje, delivered through his tweets:
“Considering Notre Dame’s arrangement concerning the CFP, of which USC had reportedly been unaware, USC reconsidered its intention to reach a middle ground and instead demanded that the Notre Dame fixture be scheduled for Week Zero in 2026. An insider indicated that they perceived Notre Dame’s arrangement as a ‘significant benefit’ that could place USC at a disadvantage.
USC’s strategic assessment underwent a substantial alteration on the day of the CFP selection. USC was already hesitant about reaching a compromise. Subsequently, apprehensions arose regarding the committee’s criteria for reward versus penalty, according to a source. Specifically, how the committee might penalize a late-season defeat to Notre Dame.
Had Notre Dame’s updated agreement with the CFP committee been active in 2025, the Irish would have secured entry ahead of Miami, despite Miami having defeated them earlier in the season. That particular prospect caused apprehension for USC.”
Access Details
Consequently… USC expresses displeasure over an agreement that their own conference commissioner ratified and implemented, yet they assert a lack of prior knowledge. They are either the most unintelligent management in professional athletics, or they are entirely fabricating the truth — most likely a combination of the two. USC sabotaged the rivalry because the mere concept of Notre Dame potentially achieving a #12 ranking in the college football playoff standings represents an outlandish and unprecedented development.
WEAK.
USC primarily drove the disintegration of the PAC-12 conference and the emergence of these absurd 18-team conference structures, all driven by financial gain. Now, they are inclined to lament challenges concerning travel, scheduling, and all other complexities they not only contributed to bringing about but effectively presided over, like a caricature of a villain with a pinkie ring, a feline companion, and a derisive chuckle.
USC has evolved into the most susceptible program nationwide. The very transparency with which the Trojans acknowledge their vulnerability is rather mortifying. The rivalry might potentially resume in 2030, and my immediate inclination would be to advise against placing any wagers on that outcome; however, there is a reasonable likelihood that the individuals currently responsible for these choices will no longer be in power by then, and the loyal USC supporters who possess courage could conceivably reinstate this fixture.
We shall observe if that scenario ultimately materialized, but my current observation is an unparalleled reluctance to contend, emanating from an organization that, under Pete Carroll’s leadership, formerly prioritized facing the strongest adversaries above all else. Reprehensible.
